IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1062 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1062 OF 2007 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1062 OF 2007 Shri Damu Shivaram Mali ...Applicant vs. Mr.Namdev Shivram Mali & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ramesh Dube-Patil i/b. M/s.Ajay Misar & Co. for the Applicant. Mr.Rajesh More, APP for the State. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2008 DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2008 DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2008 P.C. :- P.C. :- P.C. :- 1. Heard Counsel for the applicant. 2. The applicant is challenging judgment and order passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Pimpalgaon, dated 20th January, 2007 whereby the trial court was pleased to acquit the respondent accused for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 of the IPC. 3. The case of the complainant initially is that on 20th January, 1996 at about 5.30 p.m., all the accused in furtherance of their common intention assaulted the - 2 - wife and daughter of the complainant on his agricultural land. It is his case that thereafter when his wife and daughter came home and narrated the incident to the complainant, the accused came there and assaulted his wife, daughter and the complainant himself. The complainant filed the complaint before the police, however, no action was taken by the police and thereafter, a private complaint was filed by the complainant before the Magistrate. The complainant examined himself in support of the case but did not examine his wife and daughter as a witness. The trial court disbelieved the testimony of the complainant, firstly, on the ground that his testimony in respect of the first incident could not be accepted since it was a hearsay evidence because the complainant had not examined his wife and daughter who were assaulted on the agricultural field. So far as the incident of assault on the complainant and others in his house is concerned, the trial court was of the view that the complainant had not examined any other witness in support of his case and therefore, uncorroborated testimony of the complainant was not accepted. The trial court further - 3 - held that there was no explanation for the delay of 13 months caused in filing the complaint before the court. 4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the complainant had not examined his wife and his daughter because they declined to appear in the court to give evidence. He submitted that the trial court had not encouraged the complainant to examine any other witness. He invited my attention to para 4 of the said judgment. He further submitted that there was no reason why the testimony of the complainant ought not to have been accepted. 5. In my view, no case is made out by the applicant for grant of leave. The trial court has given cogent reasons for dismissing the complaint. The complainant has also not examined the Medical officer for proving the injuries caused to the complainant. Admittedly, there is a civil dispute pending between the complainant and his brothers-respondents. In this context, the delay of 13 months caused in filing the complaint becomes relevant and the trial court, therefore, has - 4 - rightly considered it as one of the grounds for dismissing the complaint. There is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the trial court. 6. Leave, therefore, is refused. Appeal does not survive. (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.) (V.M. KANADE, J.)