1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5862 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant (Org. Complainant) Versus Vasant Keshav Kamtekar & Others ...Respondents Mrs.V.R.Bhosale, APP for Applicants. Mr. B.G.Tangsali for Respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 6th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. The three respondents came to be tried by the learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class, Devgad, for having committed offence under Section 325, 323, 504, 506(2) r/w. 34 of IPC in regard to the incident which is said to have taken place on 14th May, 2006. The learned Judicial Magistrate, I Class by his judgment dated 30th August, 2007 acquitted all the three respondents of all the charges. Hence appeal has been filed and this application for leave to appeal has been filed. 2 2. I have heard Mrs. Bhosale, learned APP for the State and Mr. Tangsali, learned Counsel for the three respondents. The incident is said to have taken place on 14th May, 2006 and the prosecution has examined Chandrakant Kamtekar P.W.1, and Mrs. Anita Kamtekar as P.W.2 who are said to be the victims of the occurrence. According to the prosecution, P.W.1 Chandrakant suffered fracture to his right little finger on account of the said incident. The prosecution has produced Medical Certificate dated 19th May, 2006 issued by the Hospital Authorities at Oras. The prosecution has not examined the concerned doctor who had a chance to examine P.W.1 Chandrakant, soon after the incident. FIR in regard to the incident is lodged on 19th May, 2006. The explanation supplied for filing of the FIR after the period of about five days cannot be accepted. The explanation given indicates that the FIR came to be lodged only after getting the certificate from the hospital authorities as regards the injury. In the normal course, if Chandrakant, P.W.1 had suffered injuries on account of the incident alleged against the respondent, he could have rushed to the hospital, taken treatment and thereafter he could have been advised to go to the policestation and lodge the complaint so as 3 to put the State Machinery in action. The very fact that the FIR came to be loged after getting Medical Certificate, the version of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 is required to be seen with doubt and the benefit of the same is required to be given to the respondents. No explanation is coming forth from the prosecution as to why the Medical Officer who attended Chandrakant P.W.1, soon after the alleged incident is not examined. Even the scene of offence panchanama came to be conducted on 20th May, 2006. In substance, the prosecution has not placed before the Court cogent evidence to show that on account of alleged incident, victim Chandrakant P.W.1 sufferd injuries as alleged by the prosecution. No doubt, the oral testimony of Chandrakant P.W.1 has the effect of involving the present respondents. However, there is no medical evidence to support that Chandrakant, P.W.1 suffered injuries on account of the incident which is said to have taken place on 14th May, 2006. In the absence of appropriate explanation for the lodgment of FIR after the period of five days, the entire case of the prosecution is required to be seen with doubt. In my view, the learned Judge has taken view which can be treated as probable view in the facts and circumstances of the case and that the inference drawn in the impugned judgment is not to be interfered. 4 3. In view of this, leave to file appeal is required to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)