-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2282 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.2282 OF 2006 APPLICATION NO.2282 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Pintu @ Sandip Namdeo Patil ...Respondent Mr.K.V.Saste A.P.P. for State None for the Respondent CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE DATE DATE : JUNE 24,2008. : JUNE 24,2008. : JUNE 24,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Applicant-State of Maharashtra has preferred this Application against the Judgment and Order dated 1-3-2006 passed by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Islampur in Criminal Appeal No.8 of 2003. By the said Judgment and Order the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondent-original accused of the offence punishable under section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused entered into the field of the complainant-Prabhakar and set fire to the sugarcane crop. Due to this damage of about Rs.10,000/- was caused to the complainant. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the Judgment and Order and the evidence produced by the learned APP. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has relied -2- upon the evidence of the complainant and four other witnesses i.e. Ashok Shamrao Patil, Shamrao Kokate, Keru Krishna Jadhav and Tanaji Patil. It is pertinent to note that the complainant in his evidence has specifically mentioned that at the time of incident only he and accused persons were present in the field. In the F.I.R. there is no mention of other eye witness. Looking to the evidence of the complainant before the court that no other persons were present in the field except himself and accused persons, it appears that other witnesses are got up witnesses. 5. In the present case there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained. Delay raises grave doubt in the mind about the veracity of the complainant and the prosecution case. A large number of discrepancies have been found in the evidence of the witnesses, these discrepancies affect the prosecution case. 6. Considering the above facts, the learned Sessions has acquitted the Respondent-accused. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for in the impugned Judgment and Order. Application is rejected. -3- (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)