1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application (APPA) No.765/2011 ( The State of Maharashtra, through the Police Station Officer, Police Station, Pauni, Distt. Bhandara ..Vs.. Manik S/o Maroti Kamble ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. V.A. Thakre, A.P.P. for State/applicant. CORAM : M.N. GILANI, J. DATED : 15.12.2011. 1. The applicant/State is seeking leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 17th of August 2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Bhandara in Special Case No.1/2010 whereby the applicant/accused was acquitted of an offence punishable under sections 448, 354, 506 of the Indian Penal Code and under section 3 (1) (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act. 2. The incident occurred on 13/7/2009. Time was 9 a.m. The prosecutrix was cooking food in her house. At that time, the accused made entry in her house, grappled her and carried her in other room. He was demanding sexual favour from her. At that 2 time, her daughter came there. She told the accused that whatever she had seen would be informed to her father. The accused threatened her. Because of the threats, the prosecutrix did not disclose the incident to her husband. Eight to ten days prior to lodging of the report, the accused had passed some comments. The prosecutrix complained to her husband about the conduct of the accused. Her husband accosted the accused. The report was lodged on 26/10/2009. 3. Seven witnesses were examined to substantiate the charges. Learned Sessions Judge held in para 16 of the judgment as follows : “in the circumstances as above, in my opinion, unexplained delay in lodging report is fatal to the prosecution. That raises reasonable doubt about happening of the incident as narrated by the complainant. Further there is nothing on record to show that the accused knowing that the complainant is of lower caste, allegedly committed the offence. In fact, I have already observed that the testimonies of the witnesses are not worth of credence and raises doubt about the whole incident. In the circumstances, I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies suffer from inter-se contradictions and material omissions as discussed above. In view of the same I hold that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused on any of the counts.” 4. The findings recorded by learned Special Judge is borne out from the evidence on record. Three and half months delay in lodging the F.I.R. has remained unexplained. The judgment and 3 order of acquittal cannot be said to be sans evidence on record. No interference is justified. Leave refused. JUDGE Tambaskar.