sat 1 cri.appln 891-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 891 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Kisan Tulshiram Gaikwad ...Respondent Mr.A.S. Shitole, APP for the State. CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. AUGUST 17, 2011 P.C. :- 1 Heard the learned APP Mr.Shitole for the State. 2 Perused the impugned judgment. Two eye witnesses had turned hostile. The evidence of third eye witness had been questioned by the Magistrate on the ground that though he claimed to be an eye witness, he failed to give intimation of the incident to the person whose property was destroyed by the alleged mischief. There is an inordinate delay in lodging the FIR. An attempt was made during the course of trial to explain the delay. It was stated before the trial court that the talks of settlement sat 2 cri.appln 891-2011 were in progress and therefore, there was delay in lodging the FIR. Even if it is assumed that delay has been properly explained, there was no sufficient evidence to come to the conclusion that the respondent was responsible for the alleged mischief. As already stated, two eye witnesses have turned hostile and the evidence of third eye witness has been rightly found to be doubtful by the trial court. Hence, case is not fit for grant of leave to appeal. 3 Application is dismissed. (M.L. TAHALIYANI, J)