1 APPLN.: 3316.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3316 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 Suresh Jayram Lotankar .... Applicant Vs. Shantaram Vishram Lotankar & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Chetan Arerkar, Advocate for applicant. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 23rd August, 2011 P.C. 1. This application is for leave to prefer appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th May 2010, acquitting respondents no. 1 to 6 of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(II) read with 34 Indian Penal Code. Notice of the application has been served upon the respondents. They are absent despite service. Respondents no. 1 to 6 are the relatives of the applicant. 2 APPLN.: 3316.2010 Respondents no.1 and 2 are the husband and wife and respondents no. 3 and 4 are their children. Respondents no. 5 and 6 are husband and wife. 2. The applicant had filed a private complaint being Regular Criminal Case No.2 of 2008 alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506(II) read with 34 Indian Penal Code against respondents. The brief facts of the prosecution are that the applicant and respondents no.1 to 6 own ancestral house at Mauje Wadilimbu, Taluka Lanja, District Ratnagiri. There are in all five families residing in the house. One portion of the house is in possession of the applicant and the other four portions are in possession of the relatives of the respondents. On 28th January 2008, the applicant accompanied by his father had visited the native place for performing some Pooja in his house. At about 2 pm., after completing the Pooja ceremony, the father of the applicant was sitting outside the house, which is a portion common to all the families. At that time, respondents no. 1 to 6 came there and abused the father. At the relevant time, the applicant was inside the house. When he came out, he was caught from behind by respondent no.1. 3 APPLN.: 3316.2010 Respondents no.4 and 5, who were carrying bamboo sticks assaulted him on his thighs with the bamboo sticks. The other respondents i.e. respondents no. 2, 3 and 6 assaulted him with hands and fists. The applicant claims to have approached the police after the incident, but since the police did not take any steps, he filed a private complaint. The applicant examined himself and his father in support of his case and to bring home the guilt of respondents no. 1 to 6. The trial Court on appreciating the evidence acquitted respondents no.1 to 6 and dismissed the complaint. 3. Perusal of the notes of evidence shows that there is material contradiction in the evidence of the applicant and his father. The applicant stated in his evidence that the assault by bamboo sticks upon him was by respondents no. 4 and 5 and respondents 2, 3 and 6 had assaulted by hand, whereas his father PW­2 stated that assault with bamboo sticks upon the applicant was by respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 and the assault by hand was only by respondents no. 2 and 6. The cross­examination of both the witnesses also shows that there are atleast four persons residing in the immediate neighbourhood. They are Balkrishna 4 APPLN.: 3316.2010 Lotankar, Kashinath Chavan, Harishchandra Chavan and Keru Chavan etc. The applicant has however not examined any of them. Considering these facts, in my opinion, the trial Court has arrived at the right conclusion as regards acquittal of respondents no.1 to 6. No interference with the judgment and order is called for. Hence, the application for leave to appeal is rejected. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)