1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Application No.2470/2008 In Criminal Appeal No.358/2008 [The State of Maharashtra .vrs. Purushottam Pundlikrao Balle] ............................................................................................................................................................................................. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ................................................................................................................................................................... Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, APP for the Appellant/State. .......... CORAM : K.J. ROHEE AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ DATED : AUGUST 11, 2008 1. Heard the learned APP for the Appellant/State. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of 20 days in preferring appeal is hereby condoned. Criminal Application No.2348/2008 3. Heard the learned APP for the Appellant/State. 4. According to the prosecutrix the incident took place on 25.9.2006. She, however, lodged report on 28.9.2008. According to her the reason for delay was that the accused 2 had threatened her and that is why she could not gather courage to lodge report. The evidence of the prosecutrix shows that immediately after the incident she raised shouts and called Dharma (PW 6) to whom she was supplying water. However, the evidence of PW 6 Dharma shows that on that day the prosecutrix did not disclose anything to him. Another aspect of the case is that the prosecutrix admitted that after the incident she did not wash her inner garment but the report of Chemical Analyser shows that no semen was found either on her inner garment or vaginal swab. So also neither semen nor spermatozoa was detected on her pubic hair. Thus, there is no corroboration to the testimony of the prosecutrix either by PW 6 Dharma or by the report of Chemical Analyser. The trial court, therefore, acquitted the accused. We find no perversity in the judgment of the trial Court. Hence leave to appeal is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande