(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 5314 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra, through Deepali w/o. Sunil Paul, Age : 19 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Hasegaon [Shiradhon], .. Applicant Taluka : Kallam, (Original District : Osmanabad. complainant) versus Bhagwat Dadarao Raut, Age : 59 years, Occupation : Pensioner, R/o. Hasegaon [Shiradhon], Taluka : Kallam, .. Respondent District : Osmanabad. (Original accused) ....................... Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant. Mr. Manoj Shinde, Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 13TH JULY 2011 (2) COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant / State seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 3rd September 2010, rendered by the learned Special Judge, Osmanabad, in Special Case No. 24/2009, thereby acquitting the respondent (original accused) for the offence punishable under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code, and under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 3rd September 2010, and also perused the Record & Proceedings with the assistance of the learned Counsel for parties. 4. The respondent i.e. original accused faced the trial for the offence allegedly committed of house trespass, on 3rd July 2009, at about 4.30 p.m., at Hasegaon (District : Osmanabad), by entering into the house of complainant Deepali who is a member Scheduled Caste i.e. Matang, and during the same course of transaction, accused not being a member of Scheduled Caste, used criminal force to complainant Deepali, who is a member of (3) Scheduled Caste i.e. Matang, with intent to outrage her modesty and thereby committed aforesaid offences. 5. The prosecution examined as many as six witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused. However, at the outset, although the alleged incident occurred at about 4.00 p.m. on 3rd July 2009, the complaint came to be lodged on 11.15 a.m. on 4th July 2009 and complainant Deepali has not given any plausible explanation therefor, and lame attempt was made to give the explanation for the said delay, that distance between her village and Shiradhon Police Station is about 5 - 7 Kms. The said explanation is not acceptable since distance is not a factor which could have prevented the complainant to file the complaint immediately. Moreover, it is also material to note that after disclosure of the incident to her husband by the complainant, no steps were taken to lodge the complaint immediately and the said aspect speaks for itself. 6. Moreover, learned trial court has observed that according to the complainant, she had shouted and called her sons and daughters at the time of incident, however, Ranjana (PW 3) has admitted in the cross examination, that there is only a tin-wall in between the house of complainant and the house of accused, and therefore, taking into consideration this situation, if (4) the victim had really shouted for her sons and daughters, definitely her sons and daughters would have rushed towards her and her shouts could have definitely heard by her sons and daughters, but so did not happen, and therefore, learned trial court has observed that it appears that the complainant is suppressing some material facts from the court. Moreover, Ashvini (PW 2) in her cross examination has admitted that accused is her neighbourer there there were many complaints taken place in between her family members and accused on minor grounds. Moreover, learned trial court has also observed that the evidence Ranjana (PW 3) appears to be hearsay evidence, as well as, she is close relative of Deepali, and naturally she tried to support the case of prosecution, and as mentioned herein above, she also gave important material admission that there is only a tin-wall situated in between the house of accused and the house of complainant, and therefore, concluded that the story put forth by Deepali appears to be doubtful and afterthought. After assessing the evidence on record, the observations made by the learned trial court and the finding given in pursuance to the said observations by the learned trial court, apparently, cannot be faulted with. 7. In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the (5) learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, is a possible view, and the same does not appear to be perverse, and apparently, there is no flaw in the reasoning given by the learned trial court while arriving at the said conclusion. Hence, no interference is warranted in appellate jurisdiction, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 8. In the result, present Criminal Application which is sans merits, stands dismissed, and leave to file appeal is refused. 9. Record & Proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/5314ka