( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3431 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3432 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Prakash Bhaurao Jadhav and ors. .. Respondents Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for applicant/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 09.11.2009 P.C. :- 1. Criminal Application No. 3432 of 2009 is filed for condonation of delay of 22 days in filing appeal for enhancement of sentence. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and delay is condoned. ( 2 ) 2. Criminal Application No. 3431 of 2009 is filed for leave to file appeal for enhancement of sentence. The respondents were tried for offence punishable under Sections 324, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C., in R.C.C. No. 131 of 2007, decided on 22.01.2009, by Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jafrabad. The learned Magistrate after considering the evidence, was pleased to convict all the three accused of offence punishable under Sections 324 and 323 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. Each accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month for offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. For offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. each accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six month and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for fifteen days. The accused were acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. 3. The learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 2009, decided on 06.07.2009, was pleased to confirm the ( 3 ) order of conviction but reduced sentence and directed each accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 15 days for offence punishable under Section 324 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for eight days for offence punishable under Section 323 r/w 34 of the I.P.C. The order of fine amount was maintained. It is this order of reduction of sentence sought to be challenged in the appeal. 4. Para 2 of the Trial Court judgment discloses that the complainant Sarangdhar and the accused have their lands adjoining to each other. On 15.10.2007 at about 8.00 a.m. to 09.00 a.m. there was quarrel and exchange of abuses between Sarangdhar and accused persons, as accused said that Sarangdhar who was horrowing his land, was trying to damage the common bund. At that time neighobour Baban Tekale came and intervened. The accused went away. Thereafter, at about 6.00 p.m. when Sarangdhar was sitting in cattle shed with his father Kaduba, accused went there and questioned why he was damaging common bund and why he had abused them. At that time there was exchange of abuses between the complainant and accused persons. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - Satish and Vikas gave kick and fist blows to the complainant. The ( 4 ) complainant’s father intervened. At that time respondent No. 1 gave one blow with axe on the head of Kaduba, who fell down. Thereafter, accused went away. As per medical report, Kaduba received one CLW 3 x 3 x 0.5 cm over his left parietal scalp. Sarangdhar had one contusion of 3 x 2 x 1 cm. The accused when heard on sentence have stated that their parents were depending on them. They are poor persons. Respondent No.2 Satish was also having children. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are brothers. All are agriculturists. 5. The Sessions Judge has taken into consideration that the accused are necessarily farmers. They are attending Court from 2007. It is case of single blow with axe. The complainant and accused are neighbours. So, the Sessions Judge reduced the sentence. In my opinion, the reasons given are proper. It is also brought on record that there is no previous criminal record of the accused. The incident had occurred due to action of Sarangdhar in attempting to damage the common bund, which the respondents felt to be an act of trespass. ( 5 ) 6. In the facts and circumstances, this is not a case where leave to appeal can be granted. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/cra3431.09