( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4249 OF 2009 Sudharshan Vasantrao Ambhore APPLICANT VERSUS Anandrao Marotrao Ambhore & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. U.S. Malte, advocate for the applicant. Smt. S.S. Adkine, advocate holding for Mr. S.K. Adkine, advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. Smt. S.D. Shelke, APP for the respondent No. 5. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 1st September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel. 2. Adjournment is sought by counsel for the respondents, but the request is rejected. 3. The application is for leave to appeal. 4. The respondents No. 1 to 4 were chargesheeted for offence punishable under section 324, 294 read with section 34 of the I.P. Code, vide R.C.C. No. 141/2008. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted them of the charges mainly for the reason that there was inconsistency in the versions of injured complainant and his father. It appears that the ( 2 ) F.I.R. was lodged with promptitude. The injuries caused on the person of the complainant were duly corroborated by certificate (Exh-44). It appears that Dr. Vishwambhar was not examined, but the Medical Officer was examined. The judgement of acquittal requires reconsideration on strength of the evidence which comprises of direct evidence, circumstantial evidence and the medical evidence. Hence, leave to appeal is granted. 5. Smt. Adkine waives service of notice for respondents No. 1 to 4 in the appeal. [V.R. KINGAONKAR] JUDGE NPJ/criapln4249-09