( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 182 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Vaijnath Motiram Giri .. Respondent Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the applicant. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 25.02.2010 P.C. :- 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal against order of acquittal passed in S.C.C. No. 721 of 2008 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Lohara, on 09.10.2009, thereby the respondent is acquitted of offences punishable under sections 354 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It is case of the prosecution as disclosed in the judgment that on 20.12.2002 at about 3.30 a.m. the complainant Kavita was sleeping in her house with her son. Her father-in-law was sleeping outside in a separate house. Her husband was then serving in Army at Calcutta. The ( 2 ) accused was neighbour of the complainant and the complainant had good relations with him as a neighbour. When wife of the accused had gone to her maternal house for delivery, the complainant used to cook meal for the accused, but she had stopped preparing meal for the accused prior to the incident. It is further case of the prosecution that on 20.12.2002 at about 3.30 a.m. the accused knocked the door and demanded water to the complainant. The complainant opened the door. The accused entered the house. At his request water was given to him by her. The accused told her that he had sustained injury on his wrist and demanded turmeric powder. When the complainant was pouring turmeric power on the wrist of the complainant, he caught hold her hand with bad intention. She resisted and pushed him and raised shouts. Thereafter, her father-in-law came there. She did not disclose the incident to anybody due to fear of defamation. But, the accused started to make telephone calls and gave threats and told that she should not disclose the incident to anybody. When the cousin of complainant’s husband had been to her house, the complainant told him the incident. Thereafter, they went to police station and lodged complaint. ( 3 ) 3. In this case, father-in-law of the complainant expired before commencement of the trial. Only witness of the incident is the complainant. 4. The Trial Court observed that the complainant at the outset had given 19.05.2002 as date of the incident, but then she changed it. There was delay in lodging the complaint. The Court observed that in same village brother- in-law of the complainant was residing and she could have filed the complaint earlier. The Trial Court also observed that at about 3.30 a.m. a prudent lady would not open door at the request of neighbour, eventhough he said that he was thirsty and wanted water. So, the incident itself was doubtful. 5. Considering totality of the circumstances, this is not case where leave to file appeal against order of acquittal can be granted. In the circumstances, the criminal application is dismissed. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/FEB10/cra182.10