1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3338 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. Date : February 01, 2010 1. Heard A.P.P. Shri K.M.Suryawanshi for the applicant and Shri P.N.Kalani, Advocate for the Respondent. 2. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the order of passed by the learned III Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani in R.C.C. No.593 of 2008 on1.6.2009, thereby acquitting the respondent of the offence punishable under Sections323, 324 and 5-4 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. It is the case of the prosecution that on 14.6.2008 at about 11.00 a.m., original complainant Annasaheb aged 60 2 years was taking his cattle including goats to the land. At that time, respondent No.1 Kailash came and asked the complainant to take his cattle on one side. The complainant asked the accused to go by the main road. It is said that thereafter respondent abused the complainant, took the stick from the hands of the complainant and gave with the same to the complainant who as a result of the blow, suffered injury to his right hand and right thigh. Many people gathered. One Ramu Chavan and others intervened. Thereafter, the complainant was taken to the Primary Health Center, Zari where he was treated and thereafter complaint was lodged. It is said that there was fracture of right hand. 4. At the time of evidence, except complainant, nobody else supported the prosecution case. Witness Ramu Chavan turned hostile. No other eye witness was examined. Ramu Chavan denied the incident. As per the complainant's version, he had sustained injuries on 3 both thighs and right wrist. However, evidence of Dr. Bhalerao shows that the complainant had suffered injury only to his left thigh. Medical certificate shows that there was fracture of the right wrist. Mainly because there is no corroboration to the complainant's evidence, order of acquittal is recorded. Even the panch witnesses have turned hostile. Thus, the only evidence against the accused is that of the complainant. 5. Although another view is possible, it cannot be said that the view taken by the trial court is perverse or improbable. 6. Hence, leave to file appeal is refused. Application rejected. Date: 01/02/2010 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criap3338.09