1 cri-appln-2306-09 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2306 OF 2009 (For Leave to Appeal) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs. Sachin Baburao Kalbhor and ors. .. Respondents Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for applicant. Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for respondent nos.2 to 11. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. August 03, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Adsule, the learned APP for the applicant-State. 2. This is an application filed under Section 378 (3) of Cr. P. C. seeking the leave to appeal against the order of acquittal under Section 307 read with Section 149 of IPC passed by the learned Additional Sessions 2 cri-appln-2306-09 Judge at Baramati in Session s Case No. 41 of 2005. 3. By the said order, accused no.1 – Sachin Kalbhor has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for two years. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for six months. Accused Nos. 6, 7 and 10 have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo RI till rising of the court and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-. Accused No.1 – Sachin Kalbhor has been sentenced for the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC but no separate sentence has been passed against him for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC. The trial court was pleased to acquit all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 149 and 307 of IPC and hence this application seeking leave to appeal. 4. The prosecution had examined more than one doctors. PW 9 - Dr. Gokul Kale, PW 10 – Dr. Suhas Jagtap, PW 13 – Dr. Ramesh Bhoite and PW 14 – Dr. Sanjay Bora. PW 13 – Dr. Ramesh Bhoite, in his cross examination, admitted that injury nos.1 and 2 were simple and if that be so, 3 cri-appln-2306-09 no fault could be found with the order of acquittal passed by the trial court so far as the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC is concerned. No doubt, Swapnil Jagtap – victim was operated for injury no.1 on two occasions but that by itself will not be a reason to hold that but for these operations either injury no.1 or 2 could have resulted in his death, unless such a specific medical evidence was available on record. 5. On the face of the medical evidence discussed by the trial court, we do not find any case made out for reconsideration of the reasoning set out by the learned trial Judge in support of the order of acquittal. 6. Hence, leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected. (ANOOP V. MOHTA,J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)