1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4347 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra Through Police Inspector, Police Station, Jafrabad, Taluka Jafrabad, District Jalna .. Applicant/ Applicant (Original Complainant) Versus Rekhabai w/o Kailas Lokhande .. Respondent (Original Accused) Shri K.S.Patil, Assistant Public Prosecutor for applicant CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ DATE : 9th February 2010 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant-State seeks grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 17.8.2009, rendered in Sessions Case No.85/2008 acquitting the respondent of offence punishable under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Undisputedly, the accused-respondent is the wife of P.W.4 Kailash while the complainant Ashabai was the mistress/second wife of Kailash. It was alleged against the respondent-accused that on 14.2.2008 at about 8.30 a.m. when Ashabai was drawing water from the Well, the respondent 2 pushed the complainant in the Well. The complainant thereafter was removed from the Well and a report thereof came to be lodged against the respondent-accused on 20.2.2008. 3. During trial the prosecution examined six witnesses, out of which P.W.1 Sahebrao was examined as an eye witness. However, P.W.1 Sahebrao did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. Evidence of P.W.5 Ashabai was not corroborated by the evidence of P.W. 3 Mukinda Kharat. P.W.3 Mukinda does not depose about the respondent-accused pushing the complainant in the Well. The case, therefore, rested principally upon the uncorroborated evidence of P.W.5 Ashabai. The trial Court further found that on the basis of the answers elicited in the cross-examination, the respondent-accused had initiated prosecution under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The respondent-accused had also initiated prosecution for bigamy. Ultimately, the prosecution came to be compromised and the respondent-accused and the complainant were residing with Kailash. The trial Court further found that there was enormous delay in lodging of the report. The incident allegedly occurred on 14.2.2008 while the report thereof came to be lodged on 20.2.2008. In the light of the admitted enmity between the parties, the trial Court found it unsafe to rely upon the uncorroborated testimony of P.W.5 Ashabai. 3 3. With the assistance of the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court and upon such perusal, we do not notice any infirmity/perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, there is no merit in the application and application is dismissed. Leave refused. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) (vvr/4347.09criappln)