1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4163 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.308 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Versus Raosaheb Vithalrao Lahane and ors. ..Respondents Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for applicant-State WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.308 OF 2010 Babasaheb s/o Harischandra Lahane ..Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra and ors. ..Respondents Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for appellant Mr.N.R.Shaikh, A.P.P. for respondent No.1-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 20th October 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed by the State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Latur, dated 30.6.2010, in Sessions Case No.58 of 2009, acquitting the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 307, 323, 504, 506 read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4/25 of the Arms Act. 2 2. The trial Court on the basis of the evidence of P.W.7 Dr.Shyam Agroya came to the conclusion that use of sword by the accused was completely eliminated in causing injury to the injured namely Harischandra Lahane. The injury which was caused to Harischandra was a contused lacerated wound 4 x 5 cm on his left parietal region. According to P.W.7 Dr.Shyam Agroya the head injury i.e. the contused lacerated wound was possible by any sharp weapon. In cross- examination he was shown Article No.4 – Sword which was said to have been seized at the behest of the accused and according to him by use of the said sword only incise wound was possible as it is a sharp weapon. He categorically admitted that if the Article 4 was used with force, in that case only fracture of the skull was possible. He has further admitted in the cross-examination that contused lacerated wound was possible by hitting of stone. Prosecution had examined the injured as well as P.W.3 Balasaheb Lahane, father of P.W.6 Harischandra and the first informant. Since on the basis of evidence of P.W.7 Dr.Shyam Agroya the trial Court came to the conclusion that it was not established that the injury was caused by sword, the trial Court found that there was a marked variance in the ocular testimony and the medical evidence. In fact, the medical evidence falsified the use of sword by the accused. In such circumstances and for other reasons, which are recorded in the judgment, the trial Court gave benefit of doubt to the respondents-accused. 3 3. We have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of the applicant and Mr.S.J.Salunke, learned Counsel appearing in Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2010 which is filed by the complainant questioning the acquittal of the respondents. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court. The view taken by the trial Court appears to be a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to justify any interference in this appeal against acquittal. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us there being no merit, Criminal Application No.4163 of 2010 is dismissed. Leave refused and Criminal Appeal No.308 of 2010 is dismissed. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4163.10criappln)