1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3555 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Gajanan Pandurang Patil & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : JUNE 10, 2010 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned APP for the State. 2 This application has been filed for leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal dated 16th May, 2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-4, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.109/2008. 3 According to the complainant on 2nd June, 2008, there was a dispute between the complainant 2 and the accused in respect of the land which according to the complainant was given as a grant in the name of her father-in-law. According to the complainant, there was dispute over the said land amongst her father-in-law and the accused. Therefore, the accused had a grudge against the complainant and family members. According to her on 2nd June, 2008, accused came to the agricultural land and abused them on the basis of their caste and also assaulted her. After sometime, the accused again came back and assaulted them with sticks and iron rod. An offence was registered against them at the Kagal Police Station vide C.R.No.68/2008 under the Atrocities Act and also under the Protection of Civil Rights Act and under the various provisions of IPC. Charge sheet was filed against the accused. The trial court, however, after appreciating the evidence which was adduced by the prosecution was pleased to acquit the accused. 4 I have perused the judgment and order of 3 the trial court. The trial court has given cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that the case against the accused had not been established beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court has observed that initially, an order of injunction was passed against the complainant and her relatives restraining them from entering the agricultural land of the accused. This order was confirmed in appeal. Thereafter, NC complaint was initially filed by the complainant and after sometime, complaint under the Atrocities Act was filed. The trial court has observed that the recovery of iron rod and stick has not been established and there were several lacunae in the case of prosecution regarding recovery. In view of the well reasoned order passed by the learned Sessions Court, in my view, this is not a fit case for grant of leave to file appeal. 5 It is well settled position in law that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. cannot substitute its own 4 view to the view taken by the trial court. There is no material on record to indicate that the trial court has not considered evidence which was brought on record by the prosecution. Under these circumstances, there is no substance in the submission made by the learned APP for the State. 6 Leave is refused. (V.M. KANADE, J.)