[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO. 1557 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Sudhakar Rama Date and 3 Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 DATE : JUNE 02, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 22.1.2007 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Khed, Dist.Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 r.w.34 of the IPC. 2. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. [-2-] 3. The learned Sessions has acquitted the Respondents-accused on the ground that there is delay of five days in lodging the complaint and that there are many improvements in the evidence of the complainant PW 1 Bajaji which affect the prosecution case. On perusal of the evidence, I find that there is no reasonable or plausible explanation furnished by the prosecution for the delay in lodging the complaint. Moreover, the improvements made by the complainant in his evidence are such that they affect the prosecution case. Hence, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. No interference is called for. 4. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]