1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.278/2010 The State of Maharashtra Applicant (orig. complainant) V E R S U S Sudhirsing @ Babalu Hariom Rajput Respondent. (orig. accused.) Shri S.D. Kaldae, learned APP for applicant. Shri S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for the respondent-sole CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 4TH AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.9.2009, rendered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Spl.Case (Attro) No.24/2008 acquitting the respondent/original accused for the offence under section 3 (1) (10), 3 (1) (11) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Act and also 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code. 2 2. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 25.9.2009 and Record and Proceedings with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. 3. It is alleged by the prosecution that on 3.9.2008 at about 9.30 p.m at Watsalnagar Andoor Tq. Tuljapur accused who is not a member of SC and ST, intentionally insulted complainant Laxmibai Gaikwad and Shobha Gaikwad, who are the members of Scheduled Caste by abusing them on their caste and tried to outrage modesty of complainant Laxmi and threatened her. 4. To substantiate said charges, prosecution has examined in as much as four witnesses namely PW 1 Laxmi Gaikwad, PW 2 Netaji Gaikwad, PW 3 Shanta @ Shobha and PW 4 Dy.S.P. Pradip Babar investigating officer. 5. However, although alleged incident occurred on 3.9.2008, complaint came to be lodged on 5.9.2008 at about 17.45 hours and said delay in lodging complaint has not been explained by the prosecution and hence, learned trial court has rightly observed in the impugned judgment that said un-explained delay is fatal to the case of the prosecution. 3 6. After scrutinizing evidence on record, learned trial judge has observed that prosecution has adduced evidence of interested witnesses from the same family. In fact, in the said context, PW 1 Laxmibai had stated in her deposition that neighbourers were gathered at the time of incident as well as PW 2 Netaji has also stated in his deposition that people gathered at the time of occurrence of incident but none of the said neighbourers/people have been examined by the prosecution as independent witness although they were available and there is no corroboration to the testimony of PW 1 Laxmi and PW 3 Shobha by any independent witness. 7. Moreover, it is also observed by the learned trial judge that there are number of admissions and contradictions appeared in the evidence of PW 1 Laxmi and PW 3 Shobha and their testimonies are not consistent with each other. Moreover, learned trial judge has also observed that none of the prosecution witnesses has uttered in respect of other abuses and threats given by the accused. Accordingly, after appreciating evidence on record, learned trial judge acquitted the accused from the charges levelled against him and reasoning adopted by the learned trial judge therefor appears to be proper and logical and 4 same cannot be faulted with. Moreover, after considering and analyzing evidence on record, the view adopted by learned trial judge is a possible view to be adopted and same does not appear to be perverse and hence no interference therein is called for. 8. In the result, present application being sans merit, stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal stands refused. 9. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ..... aaa/278.10