-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION APPLICATION NO.1329 OF 2007 [ Leave to Appeal ] IN APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant (Ori.Complainant) Vs. Anil Balkrishna Patil and Ors. ..Respondents (Ori.Accused Nos.1 to4) .... Ms.S.D.Shinde APP for Applicant-State .... CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND CORAM: F.I.REBELLO AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE DATE DATE : APRIL 3, 2008 : APRIL 3, 2008 : APRIL 3, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The State of Maharshtra has preferred this leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 30th September, 2006 passed by the learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 78 of 2006. 2. By the said judgment and order, the learned Judge acquitted the Respondents-original accused of -2- the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 of IPC. 3. We have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. We have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Judge and we have also perused the entire evidence in this case produced by the learned APP. 4. It is the prosecution case that Mangal (deceased) was married to Respondent No.1 Anil. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the parents of Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 is the brother of Respondent No.1. After the marriage, the Respondents started demanding money and started harassing Mangal as the demand was not met. Being fed up on account of harassment, Mangal committed suicide by jumping into the lake. 5. Mangal has committed suicide on 11.2.2006. Her dead body was found on 12.2.2006. However, FIR came to be lodged only on 15.2.2006. Complainant who is brother of Mangal has admitted that the complaint came to be filed after consulting an advocate. In fact, even the Investigating Officer -3- had asked the complainant in respect of lodging the complaint, he was told by the complainant that they made a phone call and their Advocate would soon come to Kolhapur and thereafter, they would file complaint. In the present case, there is delay of three days in lodging the FIR. We find the delay has not been satisfactorily explained. The evidence clearly shows that the FIR was lodged after much deliberation and it does not appear to be true state of affairs. 6. Even as far as the demand of money is concerned, there is inconsistency in the amount of demand. Some of the witnesses have stated that the demand was for Rs.20,000/- whereas the witnesses have stated that the demand was for Rs.50,000/-. There is nothing on record to show that the demand was made in connection with the dowry. The witnesses have stated that the amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the Respondents-accused. However, it is seen that in the FIR there is no mention of payment of Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons. So also in the complaint made to Mahila Dakshata Samiti, there is no mention of payment of Rs.50,000/- to the accused persons. -4- 7. Looking to all these facts, specially the gross delay in lodging the FIR, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [F.I.REBELLO, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [F.I.REBELLO, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [F.I.REBELLO, J.]