1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2345 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Coram: P.R. Borkar, J. Date : February 15, 2010 1. Heard Shri A.A.More, learned Advocate for the applicant, Shri K.M.Surywanshi A.P.P. for Respondent No.1 and Shri A.R.Gaikwad, Advocate for Respondent No.2. 2. The applicant seeks leave to file appeal against the order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Beed, in S.C.C. No.2808 of 2006 decided on 17.6.2009, thereby acquitting Respondent No.2- original accused of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2 3. It appears that the trial court has held that the complainant has examined in all four witnesses out of which PW-2 Apparao Waghmare and PW-3 Laxman Waghmare are the eye witnesses. However, there is inconsistency in the evidence of all the witnesses. There is also inconsistency regarding nature of beating, so also nature of threats actually given. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has noted the inconsistencies in details, in his judgment. He has also noted that as per the evidence of PW-3 Laxman Waghmare, no one had gathered when the incident took place at about 5.30 p.m. outside the tahsil office which was not probable. There was no external injury on the person of the complainant, although he claims to have been beaten with fists and kick blows. In paragraph 12 of the 3 judgment, the learned judge has observed that there is some dispute between accused and PW-2 Apparao Waghmare. Moreover, it has come in the evidence that the complaint was lodged on 16.11.2006 in respect of the incident that took place on 1.11.2006, whereas the complaint before the court was regarding the incident dated 26.10.2006. 5. In paragraphs 16 and 18 of the judgment, it is discussed that if the incident would have really occurred, then there would not have been difference regarding date of the incident. 6. In the facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be unreasonable, improbable or perverse, requiring interference. 4 7. Hence, application for leave to file appeal cannot be granted. Leave refused. Application rejected. Date: 15/02/2010 (P.R.BORKAR, J.) pnd/criap2345.09