1 appln 681 of 2011 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.681 OF 2011. Mrs. Sulbha Pramod Gaikwad .. Applicant. -versus State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. Uday Warunjikar, for the Applicant. Mrs. P. P. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. Mr. B. W. Kakade, for respondent Nos 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 30th June, 2011 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against acquittal of the respondents, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, who refused to believe the evidence of the injured persons as well as eye witnesses to the incident. One of the injured persons had suffered rupture of globe of eye with Subconjuctival haemorrhage according to Doctor. The injuries of other injured persons are also not minor which could be explained otherwise than in an assault. The learned Judge seems to have found that the seizure of weapons was not proved, there was some deficiency in the F.I.R, and principally the evidence of witnesses did not inspire confidence. 2. Learned counsel for the respondent has objection 2 appln 681 of 2011 to the tenability of the appeal on the ground that appeal against acquittal could not be filed by the first informant. The first informant is widow of Pramod Balkrishna Gaikwad whose eye had been damaged in the assault. Pramod died subsequently. Therefore the victim could have filed appeal in view of proviso to Section 372 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and on his death his widow could prosecute such an appeal. Hence objection has to be rejected. 3. Considering the judgment the question whether the respondents were really involved in the incident would, require reassessment particularly inview of serius injury to victim’s eye. Leave granted. Admit. Call for R & P. Action under Section 390 of Criminal Procedure Code. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)