JUDGMENT Mr. Ranjan Gogoi, J. (Oral):- Heard. 2. Harnek Singh, complainant, being aggrieved by the judgement and order of acquittal dated 04.08.2009, has filed this application, under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of special leave to appeal against the said judgement passed by the learned trial Court. 3. The case of the complainant is that on 23.08.98, his son Rajinder Singh had got involved in an altercation with accused Balbir Singh over a dispute with regard to release of water by the accused to the field of the complainant. According to the complainant, at about 9.00 AM, the accused, two of whom have died, assaulted his son Rajinder Singh and when the complainant had tried to rescue him accused Amar Kaur and deceased accused Mehar Singh had given two tokki blows on the right upper arm. On hue and cry being raised, the complainant and his son were rescued from the place of occurrence by one Major Singh and Raj Singh who arrived at the spot. 4. The complainant examined six witnesses in the case whereas four witnesses were examined by the defence. The learned trial Court by the judgement and order under challenge had considered the evidence of Dr. Raman Aggarwal, PW2, who had stated that the injuries on the person of Rajinder Singh as well as the complainant Harnek Singh could have been caused by a friendly act. That apart, the learned trial Court also took into account the fact that the complainant reported to the hospital nearly ten hours after the incident and had not informed the same to the police though they had to cross the police-post while going to the hospital. The learned trial Court also took exception to the examination of one Dr. Ranjit Kumar, PW3, who in his deposition in the Court made after five years of the incident stated that injuries No. 1 and 2 on the complainant could have been caused by a sharp edged weapon. The said witness (PW3) was examined by the complainant on account of the fact that as per the medical evidence on record the injuries on the complainant were found to have been caused by a blunt weapon whereas the alleged weapon of assault is tokki which could cause cut injuries in addition to lacerated wounds. The said witness (PW3) was examined by the complainant on account of the fact that as per the medical evidence on record the injuries on the complainant were found to have been caused by a blunt weapon whereas the alleged weapon of assault is tokki which could cause cut injuries in addition to lacerated wounds. On the aforesaid broad basis, the learned trial Court thought it proper to arrive at the conclusion that the complainant had not succeeded in establishing the case against the accused. 5. The power of the Court in an appeal against acquittal, though wide, is required to be exercised in a somewhat circumscribed manner in the light of several pronouncements of the Apex Court holding the field. If the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view the High Court should not supplant its view in the matter. It is only in a situation where the conclusions recorded by the trial Court are diametrically opposed to the weight of the materials on record that interference with the order of acquittal will be justified. Considering the facts of the present case, it is not possible for us to take the view that the conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court indicate an impossible conclusion or that such conclusion is a perverse one. In the above circumstances, we do not consider the present to be a fit case for grant of special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. The application for special leave to appeal is, therefore, dismissed. CRM No. 29893 of 2010 6. As the application for special leave to appeal is not being entertained, no orders on the condonation application will be called for. CRM-A-507-MA of 2010 7. In view of the order passed today in the application for special leave to appeal, this appeal is not entertained. --------------