3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3743 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders CORAM : P.R. BORKAR.J. DATED : 12.03.2010 1. Heard A.P.P. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi for the applicant/State. No one is present for the respondents. 2. This is an application for leave to file appeal against order of acquittal passed by 3rd Judicial Magistrate First Class, Osmanabad, in R.C.C. No. 548 of 2005, decided on 14.07.2009. The present respondents were prosecuted for committing offences punishable under section 325, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the I.P.C. 3. It is case of the prosecution that on 23.10.2005 at 9.00 a.m. the complainant and his father had opened their shop and were sitting in front of 3 the shop. At that time the respondents started constructing tin shed in the property of the complainant. The father of the complainant told them not to erect construction. At that time respondents beat him, abused him and also there were threats of killing. Admittedly, there was enmity between the complainant and the respondents. 4. The learned A.P.P. has taken me through the judgment of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has disbelieved the prosecution case on the ground that no medical evidence is produced on record to show that father of the complaint had sustained injury. In his statement on oath P.W.2-Vijay, the alleged injured, stated that he was sweeping the shop after opening it; whereas, say of the complainant is that his father was sitting in the shop, when the incident occurred. Moreover, in the cross-examination of H.C. Ovhal it has come on record that there was no open space to construct shed as claimed and therefore question arises whether the incident took place as alleged. 3 5. The advocate for the accused had also produced document from R.C.S. No. 229 of 2006 along with list, which shows that there was dispute between the parties. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no consistency in the evidence. 6. Considering the circumstances of the case, the view taken is reasonable and probable. There is no perversity in the findings. Hence, the criminal application is dismissed. Leave to file appeal is rejected. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/MAR10/cra3743.09