1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.512 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant V/s. Dada Baba Kharat & ors ..Respondents Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, A.P.P, for the State Mr.K.S.Patil, advocate, for the respondent Nos.1 to 10 CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 12TH JUNE, 2008 P.C. . State is in appeal against the Judgment dated 13th December, 2007 in Sessions Case No.81 of 2006. It is the case of the prosecution that at about 9.00 P.M on 6th May, 2005 the accused assaulted injured persons. On the same date one another offence was registered whereby the present accused were assaulted by the complainant herein. 2 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after considering the evidence on record, was pleased to acquit all the accused of the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 323, 504, 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 37(1) read with 135 of the Bombay Police Act as per Section 235 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. We have perused Medical evidence of the Doctor who had issued a Certificate. P.W.6 Dr.Prashant Janardan Pawar has referred to the injuries of C.L.W. over parietal region on left side suffered by Navanath. He attributed to the cause by hard and blunt object. In the cross examination however, it has come on record that Navanath had told him that he was beaten by a stick and that injury was caused. Dr.thereafter, referred C.T.Scan report and deposed by that he had not advised C.T.Scan report. In terms of the C.T.Scan there was no internal injury. Dr. also deferred to issue a Certificate for the cause of injury. Considering the evidence the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the injury was simple in nature. The learned Judge thereafter, deposed to the injuries on the other persons. 3 4. On behalf of the State the learned A.P.P pointed out that recovery was done at the instance of accused. From the evidence it appears that he had made a statement that he would produce the weapon which was an Axe. However, from the evidence what has come is that what was produced were the handles of the Spade and Axe. There are no injuries corresponding to either injuries caused by Spade or Axe. 5. The learned Judge thereafter, also considered the various inconsistencies and different versions given by the witnesses and for all the reasons gave benefit of doubt to the accused. 6. In the instant case, we are clearly of the opinion that no charge could have been framed either under Section 307 or for the matter under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code considering the evidence on record. At the highest this could have been the case of simple injury. We are informed that the accused have suffered 61 days imprisonment at the time of arrest. Considering all these 4 aspects in our opinion, this would not be a fit case to grant leave. Hence, application for leave is rejected. (F.I.REBELLO, J.) (K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.)