((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3065 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Ravindra Yadav Sonawane & ors. Respondents P.A.Pol, APP for applicant. M.R.Bubna for respondents 1 and 2. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th March 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned APP for the applicant. Leave is sought to prefer an appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents for the offences punishable under section 3(1)(x)(x1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act, 1989 read with section 354, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. A perusal of the impugned judgement shows that the acquittal of the respondents is on the following grounds :- (i) The offence was allegedly committed on 9th ((-2-)) June 2007 at 4.00 p.m., but the complaint at Exhibit-11 was lodged on 13th June 2007. Thus, there was delay of four days; (ii) Reliance was placed by the complainant on the typed complaint at Exhibit-12 which is dated 9th June 2007. The learned Judge has referred to the controversy whether the said complaint was filed on 9th June 2007 or 13th June 2007. The learned Judge observed that if the complaint was filed on 9th June 2007, the question arises as to how the same was not treated as FIR.. (iii) The complaint at Exhibit-11 was lodged on 13th June 2007 after noticing that there were shortcomings in complaint Exhibit-12; (iv) The case of the prosecution is that there was a longstanding enmity between the father of the complainant and the accused and there were civil suits pending between the parties; (v) According to the prosecution case, the incident took place on 4.00 p.m. on Saturday which is a weekly market day at Satana and many villagers come to the weekly market for ((-3-)) purchasing the articles. However, no independent witness has been examined though name of one Ravindra Pawar was cited as eye witness. It is an admitted position that his statement was not recorded by the Police; (vi) The learned Judge found that there is discrepancy in the depositions of PW-1 and PW-2 as regards the place of occurrence of the offence; (vii) In the second complaint at Exhibit-11 which is treated as FIR, the caste of the complainant was not disclosed; 3. The aforesaid findings recorded against the prosecution by the learned Trial Judge are borne out from the evidence on record. Thus, the view taken by the learned Judge is a possible view and no inference is called for. The application for leave is rejected. (A.S.OKA, J.)