:1: appln 963.11 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.963 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Shravan Budhaji Karpat ..Respondent Mr.K. V. Saste,APP for State. CORAM :- V. M. KANADE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE :- OCTOBER 4, 2011. P. C.: This is an application filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking leave to file an Appeal, as contemplated under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the order of acquittal passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Thane, in Sessions Case No. 434 of 2009. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, by his judgment and order dated 19.04.2011 acquitted the respondent, who was the sole accused in the said case and who was facing the charge of offences punishable under Sections 302 IPC and 452 of the Indian Penal Code. 2 We have gone through the impugned judgment. We have gone through the copies of Notes of evidence, that have been annexed to the application. We have heard Mr. Saste , the learned APP for the State. :2: appln 963.11 3 The case of the prosecution was that one Halya Gahala was assaulted by the respondent by means of a sickle on 13.07.2009. That, the respondent had entered inside the house of the deceased at about 12.30 in the night, when the deceased was sleeping with his wife Leela(PW-1) and children. The prosecution case was that, Leela heard shouts of her husband and, therefore, woke up when she saw the Respondent standing by the side of her head having in his hand a battery and Koyta in the other hand. That, when the Respondent saw that Leela had woken up, he ran away from there. Halya Gahala was then taken to the Government Hospital at Vajreshwari and from there, he was taken to Sion Hospital. He died on 04.08.2009. Leela, thereafter, lodged FIR on 04.08.2009. 4 In the course of investigation, the inquest panchanama and spot panchanama were drawn. Certain articles were seized. The Postmortem examination revealed that the death of Halya had been caused due to shock following Cranio Cerebral injury , and was opined to be unnatural. The Respondent was arrested, and on 16.08.2009 he disclosed information, pursuant to which a Koyta, which was alleged to be the weapon of assault,was seized. 5 During the trial, prosecution examined nine witnesses. The learned Judge, however, was not satisfied with the evidence of the :3: appln 963.11 prosecution and felt that a reasonable doubt arose about the guilt of the Respondent. He, therefore, thought it fit to give the benefit of doubt to the Respondent and acquitted him as aforesaid. 6 It is seen that, Leela claims to be an eye witness to the incident. Admittedly, she knew the accused by name. The question that arises is, why, if she had seen the accused on 13.07.2009, did she not report the matter to the Police naming the Respondent as the Assailant. It may be recalled that FIR came to be lodged by her only after 04.08.2009 i.e. after the death of Halya Gahala. 7 The learned Judge has discussed the reliability of evidence of Leela in paras 26,27,28 and 29 of the impugned judgment. He observed that delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. He also held that it was an unnatural conduct on the part of Leela, not to report the matter to the Police, for a period of about 21 days, though she had seen the Assailant, who was known to her. He also observed that she did not disclose the name of the Respondent to the Doctor at Sion hospital, who had asked her as to who was the Assailant. The learned Judge also observed that no record of the Government hospital at Vajreshwari was produced and it was not clear whether, an intimation with respect to the said medico legal case was given to the Police. The :4: appln 963.11 learned Judge also observed that one material witness Babu was not examined. 8 As regards the recovery of Koyta, the learned Judge observed that it did not contain any stains of blood. 9 Upon considering the judgment delivered by the Trial Court and on going through the copies of notes of evidence annexed to the application, we feel that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error or infirmity requiring a reconsideration by us. At any rate, the view of the matter, as taken by the learned Judge, is a plausible view. 10 We may also add that the Investigating Officer was not examined which also created an infirmity in the prosecution case. A reasonable doubt about the guilt of the Respondent, indeed, arose on consideration of the evidence that was adduced during the trial. 11 Leave refused. Application is rejected. ( A. M. THIPSAY, J ) ( V. M. KANADE, J.)