IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3331 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3331 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3331 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant (Orig.Respondent) vs. Hiralal @ Raju Babu Karnale ...Respondent (Orig.Appellant/ Accused) Mr.D.P. Adsule, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2008 DATED : DECEMBER 11, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard learned APP for the State. 2. This is an application for leave to file appeal by the State against the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, who by his order dated 30th June, 2008 was pleased to acquit the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 325, 323, 504, 506 of the IPC. The record and proceedings were called for. 3. The learned APP for the State has taken me - 2 - through the judgment and order of the lower appellate court and as also the notes of evidence. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order of the lower appellate court. In this case, the trial court initially had convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence, however, the Sessions court in appeal set aside the finding of the trial court and acquitted the accused. 4. Prosecution case is that the accused had an argument with PW1 on 28th November, 2002 where PW7 had taken the son PW1 Anil in front of the house of the accused to answer the call of nature. There was argument and the accused assaulted PW2 father of PW1 with a wooden stick on his head and on his left hand as a result of which PW2 sustained bleeding injury on his hand and serious injury on his head. A complaint was lodged. The accused was arrested. A charge-sheet was filed against him. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that there is discrepancy in the statement of PW1 and PW2 and also there is a discrepancy in the evidence given by PW 4 Dr.S.V. Khade regarding - 3 - the injury which was sustained by PW2. The lower appellate court came to the conclusion that there were two different versions given by the prosecution regarding injury caused to PW2. The lower appellate court noticed that PW4 Dr.Khade was not in a position to give sufficient explanation regarding the entry made by him in the Injury certificate (Exhibit-24) that the cause of injury was alleged road traffic accident. The lower appellate court further observed that PW2 also did not give any explanation regarding the alleged error which had crept in the said Injury Certificate. The court has further observed from the evidence on record that though PW1 in his initial report to the police had stated that the relations between him and the accused were strained on account of prior incidence, in his evidence before the court he had denied about the earlier incidence. The lower appellate court, therefore, observed that the version given by PW1 was not reliable. 5. In my view, there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the lower appellate court. It - 4 - cannot be said that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court is perverse. It is a settled position in law that by considering the judgment of acquittal, this court cannot substitute its own view to the plausible view taken by the lower court. Taking an overall view of the matter, therefore, in my view, no case is made out by the State for grant of leave. 6. Leave, accordingly, is refused. Appeal does not survive. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)