1 Cri.Appln.No.4493/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4493 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Shivaji s/o Sheshrao Kekan & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for applicant/State Shri H.K. Mundhe, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 26th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused the application and record. 2. This is an application for grant of leave to prefer an appeal against the judgment and order dated 3.5.2010, of acquittal from the charges of having committed offence punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon in Special Case (Atro.) No.4/2009. 2 Cri.Appln.No.4493/2010 3. The complainant P.W.3 Vijay Deshmane, a person belonging to ‘Mahar’ caste, made allegations that, around 6.00 p.m. on 26.11.2006, in the open place near a hotel situated at S.T. bus stand of village Dindrud, Taluka Majalgaon, District Beed, the accused hurled caste-abusive language and beat him; and as a result thereof, he had sustained injuries on his right eye and felt insulted within public view. According to him, the incident was sparked off as a result of he making demand of his balance labour charges of Rs.5000/- for the work of pipeline done by him for the accused No.1 Shivaji Kekan, R/o Chatgaon, Taluka Dharur, District Beed. 4. In order to convince the learned trial Court, the prosecution examined the complainant P.W.3 Vijay Deshmane, P.W.5 Shaikh Hajju and P.W.6 Anil Deshmane. The caste certificate showing the caste of the complainant as Mahar was duly proved before the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court, however, disbelieved the witnesses for the reason that it found no independent version of the incident. 5. The only independent witness P.W.5 Shaikh Hajju has turned hostile to the prosecution. 3 Cri.Appln.No.4493/2010 6. P.W.6 Anil Deshmane, in his cross-examination revealed that the complainant Vijay Deshmane is his cousin brother and 20 persons had gathered on the spot of the incident on hearing the shouts, and the complainant had sustained injury on his eye as a consequence of which, the eye had turned black. This vital fact is not supported by any medical evidence. None from the crowd, which alleged to have gathered came forward to support the prosecution case. Possibility that the case might have been contrived to compel the respondent/ accused to make good the payment of the balance amount of wages looms large over the case. Learned trial Court, therefore, cannot be faulted. Leave is refused. Application stands disposed of accordingly. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) fmp/cri4493.10