1 cri.appln.5841-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5841 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Appellant Vs. Sarita Prakash Raghav ..Respondent Mrs. A.S.Pai, APP for the State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 19th January, 2011 P.C. We have heard Mrs. Pai, the learned A.P.P. This is an application filed by the State of Maharashtra seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge at Ratnagiri on 4th August, 2010 in Sessions Case No.31 of 2009. 2. At the outset we must observe that the prosecution had failed to bring the material facts before the trial Court in the instant case and the learned trial Court was right in recording the said observations. 3. As per the prosecution the deceased Shri Rajendra Panchal had done a job work of carpentry and he was to receive some money from the 2 cri.appln.5841-10 accused. On 1st June, 2009 the deceased went to the house of the accused at about 8.30 a.m., and there was a scuffle between the parties, he started running and he was caught hold of and was thrown down the bridge by the accused. The deceased sustained serious injuries and died. 4. The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses including P.W.7-Dr. Jagdish Gosavi. Initially the prosecution claimed that the case was based on the evidence of three eye witnesses, P.W.3-Archana Raghav, P.W.4- Vandana Raghav and P.W.5-Sandeep Raghav. However, P.W.5- Sandeep Raghav turned hostile. His statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. by P.W.6-Vyankatesh Nashikkar, J.M.F.C. The prosecution then relied upon the evidence of the remaining eye witnesses i.e. P.W.3-Archana Raghav, and P.W.4-Vandana Raghav. 5. In her statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., and by placing on record the other documents the accused pointed out that it was the deceased himself who went to her house on 1st June, 2009 at about 8.30 a.m., and poured acid on her person. She was hospitalised at the rural hospital at Rajapur by the Police for treatment and she had sustained about 30-40% burn injuries on her body. She was admitted in the said hospital 3 cri.appln.5841-10 till 5th June, 2009 and this was confirmed through the evidence of P.W.7-Dr. Jagdish Gosavi. 6. P.W.1-Rajshri Panchal the wife of the deceased filed her complaint on 1st June, 2009 after 1.00 p.m. and it came to be recorded as F.I.R., at Exhibit 12. She did not state the source of her information and did not state as to how she had come to know about the incident. P.W.1-Rajshri Panchal stated in her complaint that the accused had killed her husband at the bridge. It is difficult to known as to how she lodged the report which came to be registered as F.I.R. In addition, the statement of P.W.4-Vandana Raghav was recorded by the Police for the first time on 1st June, 2009 i.e. after about 12 days from the date of the incident. The next aspect which is also proved before the trial Court is the distance between the two spots i.e. first spot where the alleged attack on the deceased had taken place and the second spot from where he was allegedly lifted and dumped over the bridge which was about 400-500 meters. The accused is a lady. She had sustained 30% burn injuries and in these circumstances the trial Court was right in recording its finding that the lady could not be capable of running or chasing the deceased for a distance of 400-500 meters, lift him and throw him over the 4 cri.appln.5841-10 bridge and in the river. On the complaint recorded by the accused, “A” Summary Report was filed in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Ratnagiri and despite this the prosecution did not place on record the medical papers regarding the treatment of the accused and on account of the burn injuries she had received at the hands of the deceased in the very same incident. The prosecution is guilty of suppressing this material circumstance. 7. Even otherwise the trial Court has considered the evidence of P.W.3- Archana Raghav and P.W.4-Vandana Raghav at great length and set out cogent reasons as to why they were required to be labelled as unreliable witnesses. It appears from the reasons set out by the trial Court that the Investigating Officer collected got up witnesses so as to set up false case against the accused. In addition, he could not give any explanation as to why he recorded the statement of P.W.4-Vandana Raghav for the first time on 12th June, 2009 i.e. after a delay of 12 days. Exhibit 34 was the medical certificate issued by the P.W.7-Jagdish Gosavi which indicated the injuries sustained by the accused herself and her admission in the hospital from 1st June, 2009 to 5th June, 2009. It was also indicated that the accused remained under treatment till 27th June, 2009. 5 cri.appln.5841-10 In addition the evidence of P.W.2 Bhanu Hatankar who was a panch witness to the spot panchnama Exhibit 14 indicated that the panchnama was drawn on 1st June, 2009 between 17.35 hours to 19.05 hours and as per the same the deceased was found hanging with his head down and legs up. However, the Instigating Officer Shri Shinde-P.W.8 deposed before the Court that the spot panchnama was prepared after 4.30 p.m., when the deceased was no more and if that be so, it is not known how the body was dangling with its head down and legs up, and this witness further stated that the deceased was not there at the spot and he was shifted to Ratnagiri Civil Hospital. Thus the prosecution story was not free from serious doubts. 8. For all the above stated reasons we are satisfied that the evidence placed before the trial Court by the prosecution does not call for any reconsiderations at our hands. 9. Hence the leave to appeal is refused and the Criminal Application is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)