( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 1999 Sow. Kantabai w/o. Baban Shinde .. Appellant Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. Hivra Roshangaon, Tq. and Dist. Jalna. Versus 1. Sheshrao s/o. Anna Nilkanta .. Respondents Age. Major, Occ. Agri., R/o. Roasangaon Hivra, Tq. & Dist. Jalna. 2. The State of Maharashtra Shri Nitin Patil h/f. Shri S.M. Godsay, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Mrs. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for respondent No.2/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 05.12.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal preferred by original complainant being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the 7th Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna, in ( 2 ) S.T.C. No. 11 of 1994, decided on 30.09.1996, whereby respondent No.1 was acquitted of offence punishable under Sections 354 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Briefly stated, it is case of the appellant that on 04.08.1994 at about 2 to 2.30 p.m. she was working in her land alone. At that time seeing that the complainant was alone in the land, the accused came there with illintention, scuffled with her, fell her down and sat on her chest. At that time the complainant raised shouts. P.W.3-Sahebrao Shinde, P.W.2-Gangubai and one Latabai came running from adjoining field and witnessed the incident. They rescued the complainant. On that day the complainant went to lodge complaint at Maujpur police station, but her complaint was not recorded by the police and she was sent back. Therefore, on 09.08.1994, the complainant/appellant sent complaint to the Superintendent of Police and again gave another application to him on 17.08.1994. Since, no action was taken, private complaint was filed in the Court on 23.08.1994. The complaint came to be heard and decided by the 7th Jt. Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jalna and he recorded finding of acquittal and it is this order of ( 3 ) acquittal, which is challenged in this appeal. 3. Heard Adv. Shri Nitin Patil h/f. Adv. Shri S.M. Godsay for the appellant and A.P.P. Mrs. B.R. Khekale for respondent No.2/State. No one is present for respondent No.1. 4. The learned advocate for the appellant has taken me through the entire record. The complainant – Kantabai is examined on oath at Exh.34 and she stated the story mentioned in para 2 above. It is admitted that P.W.3-Sahebrao is nephew of complainant – Kantabai. It is also admitted by the complainant that witness Latabai and P.W.3-Gangubai were used to work in her field. In the complaint it is specifically stated that the witnesses were working in the land adjoining to the land of the complainant and she was alone cutting grass. On the other hand it is case of the complainant that she was alone in her land and seeing that she was alone, the accused had come there with ill-intention. So, there is material inconsistency regarding whether complainant was alone in the land. If, Gangubai was working in the land of the complainant, it cannot be said that the complainant would not know about it. ( 4 ) 5. P.W.2-Gangubai stated at Exh.38 that when she was cutting grass in the field of complainant – Kantabai, complainant- Kantabai had gone to the well to fetch water and there was scuffle between Kantabai and accused No.1. At that time respondent No.1 was beating the appellant/complainant by sitting on her chest and the complainant raised hue and cry. But, the complainant Kantabai has also stated in her statement on oath that accused had attempted to strangulate her. Definitely, it is an improvement. P.W.2-Gangubai also admitted in her cross-examination that she always used to work in the field of the complainant. So, the Magistrate inferred that she is not an independent witness. P.W.2- Gangubai also admitted that when she reached the spot, scuffle was concluded. She was at a distance of 200 ft. and the incident had taken place near well of the complainant. 6. Another witness is P.W.3-Sahebrao, who is admittedly nephew of complainant – Kantabai, stated that he was in the adjacent land at about 2.30 p.m. and at that time complainant - Kantabai, P.W.3 - Gangubai and Latabai were cutting grass in the field of the complainant. Prior to him ( 5 ) P.W.2-Gangubai had already came there. The complainant was lying on the ground the accused was sitting on her. In cross-examination, this witness stated that the incident had not occurred in the field, but near the well and before he went, Latabai and P.W.2-Gangubai had already been there. He also admitted that before he reached to the spot, the matter was over and complainant - Kantabai did not disclose any fact to him and so he returned back. If really the accused has misbehaved with the complainant, she would have definitely told her nephew – P.W.3 - Sahebrao about it. 7. The learned Magistrate did not find the evidence reliable. The evidence of P.W.3-Sahebrao shows that Latabai, P.W.2-Gangaubai and complainant Kantabai were present and working in the land of Kantabai; whereas the complainant in her complaint, so also in her evidence has specifically said that she was alone in the land. There is no medical certificate to show that any injury was caused on the person of the complainant during the scuffle. There is no other corroboration. Though it is said by the complainant that Maujpur police refused to record complaint, there is nothing to support her case. ( 6 ) 8. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Magistrate is perverse or is not reasonable view. Taking into consideration the circumstances mentioned above, no interference can be made in the order of acquittal. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/DEC09/crap292.99