Ladda 1 appln-373-10.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 373 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant. Versus Vijay Vilas Chavan ...Respondent. ...... Mrs P.P.Bhosale, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM: A.R.JOSHI, J. DATED:- 6th May, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard Mrs Bhosale, learned A.P.P. for the State, on this application for leave to file appeal against the acquittal. 2. By order dated 6th October, 2009 passed by J.M.F.C. Panhala, District Kolhapur, present respondent was acquitted from the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 337 of I.P.C. Perusal of the record of the notes of evidence and reasoning given by trial Court reveals the following things. 1. Four witnesses are examined. Out of them important witnesses are P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. the brother of the complainant and complainant Ladda 2 appln-373-10.doc herself respectively. 2. No independent witnesses were examined though allegedly there was presence of one Smt Suryawanshi, mother of P.W.No.1’s friend. 3. The employer - woman one Smt Patil who allegedly removed the complainant P.W.No.2 to the hospital after two incident is not examined. 4. There is variance in the substantive evidence of P.W. No.1 and P.W.No.2 inasmuch as according to P.W. No.1 his sister, complainant P.W.No.2 was removed to the hospital by him when on the date of the incident i.e. on 10.4.2004 he saw his sister complainant sleeping in the house in injured condition. 5. As against this, substantive evidence of P.W.No.2 indicates that after the incident on the spot she fall on the ground and she became unconscious and subsequently regained consciousness on the same night of 10th April, 2004 in the hospital. Later on she learnt that she was removed to the hospital by one Smt. Suryawanshi. Ladda 3 appln-373-10.doc 6. There is discrepancy as to on which date F.I.R. was lodged either on 10th April,2004 or on 14th April,2004 and on this aspect there is variance in the substantive evidence of P.W.No.2 – complainant and P.W.No.4 Investigating Officer. 3. In order to appreciate the above points, the factual position leading to the filing of the complaint can be narrated in nutshell. Complainant woman – aged about 35 years was working in some cloth shop and after the days work on 10th April, 2004 she left for her house. As usual her brother P.W.No.1 was to take her to her house but on that day he had not visited the shop to take her. Hence, she started going towards her house and in the meantime met one Smt Suryawanshi, her acquaintance. That time, present respondent-acquitted accused arrived there on the spot. He was knowing Smt Suryawanshi. Upon directions from Smt Suryawanshi he gave lift to the complainant on his motorcycle for reaching her to her house. While on the way, riding on the motorcycle, allegedly the respondent-accused started misbehaving with the complainant (P.W.No.2) who was sitting as pillion rider. He tried to molest her by showing physical intimacy, while still driving the motor cycle. He asked her that both of them should go to some nearby lonely place and nobody would come to know. The complainant refused such Ladda 4 appln-373-10.doc suggestion and asked him to stop the vehicle. When the respondent- accused did not stop the vehicle, she jumped and then fell on the ground. Apparently, the respondent left the spot. The complainant regained consciousness only when she was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, at the hospital, her complaint was recorded by the police. As against this, story of the prosecution, during recording of evidence of P.W.Nos. 1 and 2 what transpired is mentioned in the points detailed above. 4. Learned trial Magistrate after ascertaining the tenor of substantive evidence and after examining the accused under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. came to the conclusion as to failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the offences charged. Much emphasis was placed by the trial Magistrate for non-examination of the independent witnesses who could have been examined in order to verify the case of the prosecution. In the opinion of this Court, it is not a case in which the leave to file appeal can be granted to again reagitate the issue as apparently there is nothing to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. In the result, present application stands dismissed. (A.R.JOSHI, J.)