1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1115 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ....APPLICANT V E R S U S Suresh Nura Rathod & Others ....RESPONDENTS Shri. V. H.Dighe, A.P.P. for the State. [ CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. ] DATE : 08/06/2009 ------------------------------------------ PER COURT : 1. This is an application seeking leave to present appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge – 2, Osmanabad in Special Case No. 3 of 2008 decided on 29/11/2008. The prosecution was launched against the accused for commission of offence punishable U/s 324, 504,506 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 2 (i) (x) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. It is alleged that on 15/8/2007, one Suresh Rathod, accused no. 1, gave dash of motorcycle to the cousin brother of Dhanaji Sopan Dedhe, by name Suraj. It was contended by Suresh that the dash was inadvertantly given, and there was no intention, behind the act which was accidental. He further stated that he will bear hospitalization expenditure for gaving treatment to said Suraj. It is further allegation of the prosecution that on 16/8/2008 when the complainant and his cousin brother Anil Dedhe were returning from Bazar at village Andur at about 4.00 p.m., accused nos. 1 to 3 accosted them. They were armed with sticks. It is contended that the accused abused the complainant and Anil on the ground of caste and further extended beating to them. The complainant and the injured were rushed to the Primary Health Centre and they were administered medical treatment. On the next day, F.I.R. came to be lodged at Naldurg Police Station. After completing investigation, in the crime, police presented charge sheet to the Court. 2. The charge was framed by trial court, to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. At trial, defence of the accused is of denial. According to them, the father of complainant was doing business of illegal sale of liquor and accused no. 1 Suresh is witness 3 in one of the cases launched against father of the accused and on that count, there is enmity between them. The accused have denied the occurrence of the incidence and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the crime. 3. The prosecution, in order to bring home the guilt, examined 7 witnesses. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses and statement of accused U/s 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to establish the charges levelled against accused and acquitted them. 4. I have perused the Judgment recorded by the trial Court. There is undoubtedly delay of one day in lodging F.I.R., which has not been explained by the prosecution. So far as medical evidence is concerned, it has been recorded by the trial Judge that the medical certificate does not bear any date. There is also no endorsement of the P.S.O. in token of receiving medical certificate. The evidence in respect of tendering letter at Exh. 21 by the P.S.O., is also found to be doubtful. Considering this lacuna in the prosecution evidence coupled with the defence raised by accused in respect of enmity between the parties, the trial Court was justified in drawing the inference as regards the 4 innocence of the accused. The reasons recorded by the trial Court appear to be reasonable and logical. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, is no ground to cause interference in the order of acquittal. There is no merit in the Appeal. The application seeking leave to present Appeal, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, the Appeal also fails and stands dismissed. [ R.M.BORDE ] JUDGE knp/CRIAPPLN1115.09