1 cri4913.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4913 OF 2011 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4914 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- Kisan Laxman Gaikwad (Dead) abated Sau. Shalubai Kisan Gaikwad and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Shri D.V. Tele , A.P.P. for applicant/State. ..... CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND A.M. THIPSAY , JJ. DATE : 23rd November, 2011 PER COURT : (PER A.M. THIPSAY, J) 1. By Criminal Application no. 4913 of 2011, the applicant-State of Maharashtra is seeking leave to file an appeal against the order of acquittal dated 05.08.2011 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 39 of 2008. The Criminal Application no. 4914 of 2011-also filed by the State of Maharashtra is for condonation of delay in filing the application for leave. The delay is of three days. 2. We have asked the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, who appears for the applicant-State to address us on the merits of the application for leave to file the appeal. We have heard him. 3. The respondents were the accused nos. 1 to 6, respectively in the said Sessions Case. The allegation against them was that they had committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 109 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents shall hereinafter be referred to by the 2 cri4913.11 position held by them in the trial Court, for the sake of convenience. 4. The prosecution case before the trial Court was as follows : (a) That, first informant-Savita is the wife of accused no.4- Pramod. The accused nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are the relatives of the accused no.4-Pramod. Accused no.6-Lata is a resident of the same village, where the first informant and the accused resided. She is not related to the other accused. (b) That, the marriage of Savita took place on 18.04.2004. Thereafter, she went to her matrimonial home to stay with accused no.4-Pramod. Accused no. 4 was residing in a joint family and accused nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 were also residing in the same house. After about two to three months from the marriage, the accused persons started ill-treating Savita. They started demanding Rs. 1 Lacs for enabling the accused no.4 to secure job. That, in May, 2006, an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was paid to the accused nos. 1 and 5. However, thereafter, they had been asking for the balance amount of Rs. 60,000/-. The accused no.6, who used to visit the house of the other accused, frequently used to tease Savita and instigate the other accused to ill-treat her more. (c) That, on 02.04.2007, the accused nos. 1 to 5 abused and assaulted Savita. They poured kerosene on her person and attempted to set her on fire. Savita lodged a report about the incident on the same day at about 11 p.m. Savita made a telephone call to her parents. She took shelter in the house of one Vikas Gaikwad. (d) On the next day, she went to the house of her parents. That, on 16.04.2007, she lodged the First Information Report, pursuant to 3 cri4913.11 which, ultimately, the accused were prosecuted and acquitted. 5. Being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the State of Maharashtra is seeking leave to file appeal against the said acquittal. 6. The prosecution examined six witnesses during the trial. We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have glanced through a copy of the notes of evidence of these witnesses. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not believe the evidence of Savita (PW-1). He observed that though Savita claimed that on 2nd April, 2007, the accused had poured kerosene over her and attempted to set her on fire, she did not mention this fact at all, in the report lodged by her with the Police on the same day. The learned Judge also observed that the first information report was lodged only on 16.04.2007 and that, there was no satisfactory explanation of the delay in lodging the same. He also found that the explanation given by Savita about not mentioning of fact of pouring kerosene on her person and attempting to set her on fire, to be not satisfactory. 8. The learned Judge also observed that the material witness Vikas Gaikwad was not examined. The learned Judge observed that there was no explanation from the prosecution as to why the said material witness was not examined. 9. The learned Judge also considered the evidence of Meera Giri (PW-4), who is neighbour of the accused. Said Meera Giri (PW-4) in her evidence had stated that the accused were treating Savita well and that, Savita used to quarrel with the accused persons frequently as she wanted separate residence. The learned Judge observed that the evidence of the said witness was helpful to the accused rather than to the prosecution. 10. After having gone through the evidence, we are of the opinion that the view of 4 cri4913.11 the matter, as taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge does not suffer from any infirmity, impropriety or illegality. The appreciation of evidence, as done by the learned Judge, appears to us to be proper and legal and we do not feel that it requires any reconsideration. 11. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no case for grant of leave to file the appeal. 12. Since, we have examined and considered the application for leave to file appeal on merits, we are inclined to treat the application for condonation of delay as having been allowed. 13. Leave is refused. 14. With this, both the applications stand disposed of. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) ( A.H. JOSHI, J.) ga s/cri4913.11