1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 856 OF 2009. The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant. VERSUS. Balasaheb Suryabhan Shinde and others. ...Respondents. ------------------------------------------ Mr. K.S.Patil,A.P.P for applicant. ------------------------------------------ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ) DATE : 7th September,2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. Though served, respondent are absent. 3. The respondent were tried before the learned Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.30/2004 for the offense under sections 498-A read with section 34 and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted them. The reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge would show that, due to delayed FIR he did not accept the versions of P.W.2 Vitthal i. e. father of the deceased and P.W.4 Mahipat. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have simply quoted several authorities, but failed to properly apply the case laws. 4. Considering impugned judgment, there is need to consider the facts in question and make through analysis of the evidence. Hence, leave to appeal is granted. 2 5. Admit. 6. Call for Record and Proceedings. 7. Print is dispensed with. 8. The Action under section 390 of the Criminal procedure be taken. 9. The compliance reported by the Sessions Judge to be made within six weeks. ( V.R.KINGAONKAR, J ) MTK/cri.856.09