[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.6849 OF 2005 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Dattaram Ramchandra Raool ..Respondent ... Mr.A.S.Shitole APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JULY 2, 2008 DATE : JULY 2, 2008 DATE : JULY 2, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.5.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Sindhudurg at Oras in Special Case No. 4 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondent-accused of the offences under Sections 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The prosecution case is that the complainant is a sarpanch. On 24.5.2002 a little after 10.00 a.m. the accused entered into the cabin of the [-2-] complainant with the photographer PW 2 Kiran Raool and took some photographs. When the complainant asked why he had entered the cabin without her permission, at that time, the accused said why he should obtain permission of Maharin Sarpanch for entering the cabin. Thus the accused referred to the caste of the complainant. Thereafter, the accused gave threats to the complainant that he would immediately go to the police station and lodge complaint against her. The accused also said that he would lodge complaint against her even though she was sarpanch as she was drinking liquor and selling the liquor and she should not go anywhere until he brings police. After saying so, the accused went away. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. The incident has occurred on 24.5.2002. However, the FIR is lodged by the complainant on 11.2.2003 i.e. after one and half year. The case of the complainant is that she had approached the [-3-] police, however they did not lodge her FIR. The FIR is lodged after one and half year. If at all the police were not registering the FIR, complainant could have filed complaint before the Court and she would not have waited for a period of one and half year to lodge her FIR. However, no doubt, the complainant had filed complaint before the Superintendent of Police on 17.11.2003, however, it is seen that the incident occurred on 24.5.2002. Thus, the said complaint before the Superintendent of Police is also belatedly filed. The FIR is extremely belated. In my opinion, no plausible explanation has been furnished for delay in lodging the FIR. This delay itself raises grave doubt about the veracity of the complainant’s case. 5. On the other hand, it is an admitted fact that on 24.5.2002 i.e. on the date of the incident itself, the accused had lodged complaint against the present complainant. The accused had taken some photographs of liquor bottles in the office of sarpanch i.e. the present complainant and there was allegation by the accused of misusing the Gram Panchayat Office by the present complainant. Complainant has admitted that brother of accused [-4-] had filed an application before the Collector to cancel her membership. The defence of the accused is that as he had lodged complaints against the present complainant, therefore in retaliation, the complainant has falsely implicated him in the present case. The defence taken by the accused appears to be very much probable. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all these facts and thereafter, he has acquitted the respondent-accused. 6. Looking to the above facts, the view taken by the learned Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. 7. Application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]