(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1576 OF 2007. The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. Versus Versus Versus Rajkumar Annasaheb Patil & Anr. .. Respondents. .... Mr.Y.S. Shinde, APP for Applicant. Mr. G.V. Savagave, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 20th June, 2008. DATED : 20th June, 2008. DATED : 20th June, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The applicant - State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 11th July 2006, passed by the 5th Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.33 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-original accused nos.1 & 2 of the offences under section 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, and under section 7(1)(d) of the Protection of Civil Rights Act. (2) 2. The prosecution case is that the complainant is Sarpanch of Grampanchayat, Chinchwad. The accused no.1 was elected as Deputy Sarpanch. During her tenure, the complainant had constructed a cistern for drinking water. The accused had asked her to hand over the documents relating to construction of cistern. The complainant stated that he should give an application for the same. On account of this, the accused got angry and uttered the words to her as "Mharadye, for 3 years, you have worked as Sarpanch, henceforth I shall work as a Sarpanch." At the same time, accused no.2 also uttered the words in respect of caste of the complainant. The said incident has taken place on 20th January 2006, at about 10.00 to 10.15 a.m, thereafter, the F.I.R. came to be lodged by the complainant against the respondent - accused. 3. I have heard learned A.P.P. for the State, and learned Advocate for respondent - accused. I have perused judgment and order as well as evidence which has been produced by the learned A.P.P. (3) 4. The incident has taken place on 20th January 2006, at about 10.00 to 10.15 a.m. However, the F.I.R. has been lodged on 23rd January 2006, no plausible explanation has been furnished for delay in lodging F.I.R. This delay itself raises grave doubt in the mind regarding the genuineness of the prosecution case. Moreover, the complainant has admitted that the F.I.R. was lodged only after discussion and consultation with the other persons. This fact again raises doubt about the genuineness of the prosecution case. Admittedly, there are two political groups in Grampanchayat, Chinchwad, viz. Laxmi Panel and Karmavir Panel. It is not disputed that both the accused persons are belonging to Laxmi Panel, while complainant Surekha Sardesai and other witnesses except PW.4 Baburao Koli are belonging to Karmavir Panel. PW.4 - Baburao Koli though elected from the panel of the accused had joined hands with the members of complainant’s Panel. PW.3 - Prakash in his testimony at Exhibit 20 and PW.2 - Surekha Sardesai in her testimony at Exhibit 15 and particularly, in their cross-examinations have (4) admitted that PW.4 - Baburao Koli always remains with them. It is also seen that PW.4 had accompanied the complainant to lodge the F.I.R. 5. It is not disputed that complainant Surekha Sardesai was elected from Reserve Category candidate as a Sarpanch of Grampanchayat Chinchwad, as the said post was reserved for female candidate of Scheduled Caste. It is not disputed that the accused no.1 - Rajkumar was elected as Deputy Sarpanch. The defence of the accused is that the complainant was afraid that she would be removed from the post of Sarpanch and that the accused no.1, who was Deputy Sarpanch would be made Sarpanch, hence, she has falsely implicated the accused. PW.2 - Surekha Sardesai in her cross-examination has admitted that there had been a news published in the newspaper that if 20% of the population of a village makes a complaint against the Sarpanch, said person will be removed from the post of Sarpanch. She has admitted that the accused no.1 has started movement to make complaint against her. On perusal of the admissions given by the (5) complainant, there appears to be much merit in the defence taken by the accused. 6. I have already observed that there is delay in filing the F.I.R. The delay has not been satisfactorily explained. This delay itself causes grave doubt in the mind regarding the veracity of the complainant. On account of the un-explained delay, the prosecution case is seriously affected. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all the above aspects and thereafter, he has acquitted the respondent - accused. 8. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. hence, no interference is called for. The application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (6) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)