1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 48 OF 2001 Kasim Babulal @ Balabhai ] Shikalkar, ] Age 45 years, Occ: Service ] R/o Natepute, Taluka Malshiras, ] District Solapur ]..Applicant [Ori.Accused] Vs. The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondent .... Mr.R.S. Kate Adv. for Applicant Mr.Rajesh More A.P.P. for State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : APRIL 23, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT: 2 1 By judgment and order dated 30.11.1992, the applicant- original accused came to be convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Malshiras, under Section 304-A of IPC in RCC No. 133 of 1987. By the said judgment and order, he came to be sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and fine of Rs.500/- i/d S.I. for two months. Appeal preferred by the applicant came to be dismissed, hence, this revision application. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: That Laxman Salunke (deceased) on 10.8.1987 at about 6.00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. went to take bath in the well situated at survey no. 91 at village Medad, Taluka Malshiras. He received an electric shock from the tension wire to the electric pole. He died on account of the electric shock. It is the prosecution case that the accused was appointed as wireman for that area and that on the day earlier to the incident, PW 2 Shivadas, PW 3 Manik and PW 4 Sudhakar had informed him that there was a leakage of electric current. However, despite being told this fact, he did not take any steps to repair the fault and thus due to this negligence on the part of the accused, the death of Laxman was caused. 3 I have the heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned APP for the State. I have also perused the record pertaining to 3 this case. After carefully considering the matter, I am of the opinion that the conviction of the applicant deserves to be set aside. 4 It is the prosecution case that PW 2 Shivadas, PW 3 Manik and PW 4 Sudhakar had informed the accused that there was leakage of electric current one day before the incident yet the accused did not take any steps to repair the fault. It is pertinent to note that all the witnesses have come up with this case only about eight days after the incident. Laxman sustained electric shock on 10.8.1987. On that day, PW 1 Baburao who is uncle of the deceased Laxman, went to the Police Station and informed the police that his nephew sustained electric shock from the tension wire of the pole, due to which, he died. Pursuant to his information, A.D.R. came to be registered on 11.8.1987. It is the case of Baburao that PW 3 Manik was also present at the time when Laxman sustained electric shock. However, none of these witnesses i.e. P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W. 4 informed the police authorities that on the day earlier to the incident, they told the accused that there was leakage of electric current and that the accused did not do anything about the leakage. The FIR in this case came to be lodged on 18.8.1987 wherein for the first time, it was stated that on the day prior to the incident, the accused was informed that there was leakage of electric current, yet he did not take 4 steps to repair the fault. This is alleged for the first time only on 18.8.1987 i.e. one week after the incident. No explanation at all has been furnished by the prosecution as to why there was a delay of a week in registering the FIR. None of these witnesses thought it fit to approach the police and inform them prior to 18.8.1987 that the accused had been informed on the day prior to the incident about the leakage of electric current, yet he did not take any steps to repair the same. I find that the FIR suffers from vice of delay. I find much merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that only by way of after thought the applicant came to be implicated as he is an Officer of M.S.E.B. so that some compensation could be claimed by the family of Laxman. Looking to the facts of this case, this inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the prosecution raises grave doubt in the mind about the veracity about the prosecution case. Both the courts below have not at all taken into consideration this aspect of delay. This delay shakes the very foundation of the prosecution case and makes the entire prosecution case suspect. In the facts of the present case this unexplained delay is fatal. 5 In view of the above, this revision succeeds. The conviction and sentence imposed on the applicant vide judgment and order dated 5 30.11.92 in RCC 133 of 1987 by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Malshiras, is set aside. The applicant is acquitted thereunder. Bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 6 In the result, this Revision Application is allowed. Rule made absolute accordingly. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]