1 cr-apln-2519-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2519 OF 2010 (FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant [Ori.Complainant] Vs. Vijay Kashiram Kumbhar and Anr. ..Respondents [Ori.Accused 1 and 2] .... Mr. S.A.Shaikh APP for the Applicant-State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 P.C. : 1 Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried forthwith. 2 The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 30.1.2010 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ratnagiri in Special Case No.11 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, the respondents i.e. accused nos.1 and 2 came to be acquitted of the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the said “Act ”) r.w. Section 7(1) (d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 and under Sections 504, 2 cr-apln-2519-10 506 r.w. 34 of the IPC. 3 The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 20.3.2009 complainant went to the house of respondents-accused nos.1 and 2 and requested them to reduce the water supply of their tap so that they could get water, whereupon the accused abused them in relation to their caste and also threatened them. Hence, FIR came to be filed. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the respondents-accused. 4 I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge. I have also perused the evidence which was produced by the learned APP. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge does not call for any interference. 5 It is noticed that the incident took place on 20.3.2009, however, the FIR was lodged on 27.4.2009. No plausible explanation has been furnished by any of the witnesses in respect of the said delay in lodging the FIR. The learned APP tried to submit that the mother in law of the complainant was unwell, hence, the complainant was required to go to Mumbai. He submitted that on 21.3.2009 itself the complaint in 3 cr-apln-2519-10 writing was sent by the complainant to the police station. However, this submission not supported by any oral or documentary evidence. This statement has not been corroborated by any police officers that any such complaint was received by them. According to the complainant, this letter was posted from Mumbai where she had taken her mother in law for treatment. However, the envelop in which the complaint (Exh.12) was sent, does not bear any seal of any post office in Mumbai. It bears the seal of the post office of Sangameshwar. It was also received in the post office at Sangameshwar on 8.4.2009. Thereafter, it was received by the police station and complaint came to be filed. The fact that there is no seal of any post office in Mumbai thereon, clearly belies the averment of the complainant and it supports the defence theory that the respondents have been belatedly involved in a false case. 6 The further case of the complainant is that the accused threatened to kill her and her family members, however, none of the eye witnesses who were present at the spot, have corroborated this version of the complainant. 7 For an offence to be made out under Section 3 of the Act, the necessary ingredients are that the accused should not be a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe but aggrieved person should belong to a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. However, after 4 cr-apln-2519-10 going through the entire evidence, there is no material to show that the accused did not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. These aspects as well as other aspects have been taken into consideration by the learned Special Judge and thereafter, he has acquitted both the respondents-accused. 6 Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 7 The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different plausible view may arise on the evidence. It has been so observed by the Supreme Court in K.Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1428. 8 So also, the Supreme Court in the case of C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. I have already observed that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a 5 cr-apln-2519-10 reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. 9 In view of the above, application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]