[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.3808 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Rahul Mahadeo Nale ..Respondent ... Ms.A.T.Jhaveri APP for Applicant Mr.Ghonsalkar on behalf of Mr.Vijay Patil Advocate for Respondent ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 21, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 21, 2008 DATE : JANUARY 21, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The applicant-State has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 17.5.2006 passed by the learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.155 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as [-2-] under: . Complainant P.W.4 Ramesh Nale had two wives. The second wife was Sandhya (deceased). The incident occurred on 15.9.2005. Three months prior to the incident, complainant noticed that respondent-accused was chitchating with his wife Sandhya. P.W.4 Ramesh asked the accused not to visit his shop and house but the accused did not listen to him. Sandhya used to tell Ramesh that the accused was harassing her. So also children of the informant informed him that the accused used to visit shop and house and talk to their mother. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 14.9.2005, Sandhya went to Phaltan at 11.00 a.m. She returned home at 3.00 p.m. The complainant found Sandhya was disturbed, hence, he made enquiry with her. Sandhya informed him that she was having headache and she went to sleep without taking dinner. The Informant again made enquiries with Sandhya, whereupon she informed him that respondent-accused had met her at Phaltan and forced her to keep illicit relationship with him but she refused to do so. Hence, accused [-3-] threatened her that he will defame her in the village. On the next day morning on 15.9.2005 at about 6 a.m., after answering the call of nature, the informant returned home and found that Sandhya was burning. He came to know that Sandhya had set herself on fire. Sandhya was taken to the hospital where she was declared dead. It was found that she had sustained 96% burn injuries. Thus, the case of the prosecution appears to be that the accused pressurised Sandhya on 14.9.2005 to keep illicit relations with him and on her refusal to do so the respondent threatened her that he will defame her in the village. Due to this, Sandhya committed suicide. 3. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State and the learned advocate for the Respondent-accused. Perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. It is seen that though the incident had occurred on 15.9.2005 at 6 a.m. the F.I.R. has been lodged at the police station by P.W.4 Ramesh Nale husband of Sandhya only on 16.9.2005. There [-4-] is delay in lodging the FIR. No reasonable explanation has come forward in the evidence of the prosecution in respect of the delay. The delay in lodging the FIR has remained unexplained, so also the statements of witnesses have been recorded at a late stage. Inordinate delay throws a cloud of doubt on the genuineness of the prosecution case. If really, deceased Sandhya had committed suicide on account of the accused threatening to defame her in the village if she did not fulfil his demand for illicit intimacy, then certainly on 15.9.2005 informant as well as P.W.Nos.1 to 3 would have made a complaint or would have given statement before the police against the accused. 5. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of four witnesses in order to show that the respondent-accused harassed Sandhya and abetted her to commit suicide. Reliance is placed on the testimony of P.W.1 Sagar Nale s/o deceased Sandhya P.W.2 Sevanta Nale sister in law of Sandhya, P.W.3 Ashok Nale brother in law of deceased Sandhya and P.W.4 Ramesh Nale husband of deceased who is also complainant. As far as P.W.Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, all of them had spoken of incidents [-5-] which had occurred more than 15 days prior to the incident. Only the complainant has spoken about the events which occurred on 14.9.2005 i.e. one day prior to the date his wife committed suicide. The complainant has stated in FIR that on 14.9.2005, Sandhya went to Phaltan at 11.00 a.m. She returned home at 3.00 p.m. The complainant found Sandhya was disturbed, hence, he made enquiry with her. Sandhya informed him that she was having headache and she went to sleep without taking dinner. The Informant again made enquiries with Sandhya, whereupon she informed him that respondent-accused had met her at Phaltan and forced her to keep illicit relationship with him but she refused to do so. Hence, accused threatened her that he will defame her in the village. On the next day morning on 15.9.2005 at about 6 a.m., after answering the call of nature, the informant returned home and found that Sandhya was burning. He came to know that Sandhya had set herself on fire. However, it is pertinent to note that P.W.4 Ramesh has not stated anything about the incident dated 14.9.2005 in his deposition before the Court. The said facts have been stated by him only in the FIR. It is pertinent to note that the [-6-] witness has not deposed about the same before the Court. 6. As far as the facts which have been stated in the FIR are concerned in the decision in the case of Sayyed Amin Sayyed Amanoddin Vs. State of Sayyed Amin Sayyed Amanoddin Vs. State of Sayyed Amin Sayyed Amanoddin Vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) 682 Maharashtra; reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) 682 Maharashtra; reported in 2004 ALL MR (Cri.) 682, it has been held that the FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used to corroborate statement of maker under Section 157 of the Evidence Act or to contradict it under Section 145 of the Evidence Act. In the case of Ibrahimkhan Pirkhan Pathan Vs. State of Ibrahimkhan Pirkhan Pathan Vs. State of Ibrahimkhan Pirkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra; reported in 2003 ALL Mr (Cri.) 535 Maharashtra; reported in 2003 ALL Mr (Cri.) 535 Maharashtra; reported in 2003 ALL Mr (Cri.) 535, it has been observed that FIR is not substantive piece of evidence of facts stated therein but it is an evidence to corroborate the informant under Section 157 of Evidence Act and to contradict him under section 155 and section 145 or is admissible under Section 432(1) of the Evidence Act. The FIR cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence nor the contents of the report can be used to furnish testimony against the accused. 7. Admittedly, P.W.4 Ramesh has not stated [-7-] anything about the incident dated 14.9.2005 in his deposition before the Court. As far as the evidence of other witnesses i.e. P.W.Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, they speak of incidents which were more than 15 days prior to the incident. They do not speak of incident of 14.9.2005. It is obvious that circumstances which resulted in the death of the person must be sufficiently or closely related or connected with the death. The evidence of P.W. Nos.1 to 3 does not indicate that there is direct nexus between the death of Sandhya on account of any proximate act by the accused. All the witnesses are interested witnesses. No independent witness from the locality has been examined in respect of misbehaviour of the accused. Only P.W.4 speaks of the incident of 14.9.2005 that too only in his FIR. I have already stated above the reasons why I am not inclined to rely on the averments in the FIR. 8. Moreover, it is seen that deceased Sandhya was a 36 years old lady. She was sitting elected member of the Gram Panchayat. She was woman of bold nature and dealing with the persons throughout the day. On the other hand, the respondent-accused [-8-] is 23 years of age and unmarried person. If really the accused was insisting that deceased Sandhya should have illicit relationship with him, then certainly Sandhya would have slapped him or would have raised shouts and collected persons but no complaint was ever made by deceased Sandhya. The house as well as the shop of the informant where Sandhya used to sit, is located in thickly populated area and there is a hotel adjoining the shop where Sandhya used to sit. If accused had really misbehaved with Sandhya, Sandhya would not have kept quiet, but she would have raised hue and cry. These circumstances indicate that Sandhya may be a consenting party to the lengthy talks which took place between her and the accused. 9. Besides the above facts, it is seen that P.W.2 Sevanta Nale who is wife of the informant has categorically admitted in the cross-examination that there was quarrel between Sandhya and her husband on account of closing of the grocery shop. The informant as well as his son were suspecting about affair of Sandhya with accused therefore, the informant i.e. husband of Sandhya had taken the decision to close the shop and on that count, there [-9-] was quarrel between Sandhya and the informant. This shows that Sandhya had no objection to the accused talking to her. Even assuming for the sake of arguments that this was not the position and Sandhya had made complaint about the behaviour of the accused, in the absence of any other material on record, it cannot be said to be the cause of death of Sandhya. There is no evidence to show any direct connection in respect of act of the accused and the death of Sandhya. The learned Judge has rightly considered all these aspects and has thereafter acquitted respondent-accused. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Additional Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 10. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere circumstance that the appellate Court would have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, I am referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 AIR 1971 AIR 1971 S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar S.C. 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC and C. Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair (2003) 1 SCC [-10-] 1. 1. 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 11. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. [ Smt.V.K.Tahilramani, J.]