1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3081 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Radhakrishna @ Rajan Dattaram Bhise & Ors. ... Respondents. Mrs. U.V. Kejariwal, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the Applicant. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 16, 2009 P.C.:- This is an application for leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of the accused in Sessions Case No. 5 of 2004. 2. The accused were charged under Sections 363, 355, 394, 395, 397, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution was that complainant, Narayan Gunaji Sawant, was working as an Estate Agent at Sawantwadi and was residing with his parents, brother, wife and kids at Bavalat Varachiwadi. He was operating his office at Sawantwadi in Sabniswada. A friend of the 2 complainant intended to purchase landed property to the extent of 10 to 12 acres at Sawantwadi, and accused No. 1 learnt about it. He approached the complainant, and said that he was holding a plot of 48 acres of landed property at Majgaon. The complainant verified and realised that the said property belonged to one Yashoda Ghadi. One Ravindra Ghadi was holding Power of Attorney for Yashoda Ghadi, and accused No. 1 was holding Agreement to Sell the said property. The complainant and accused No. 1 settled the transaction, the sale-deed of around 22 acres was executed and a sum of Rs.2,60,000/- was paid to accused No. 1, and it was also settled that accused No. 1 shall get clearance of the land and obtain N.O.C. from the Forest Department in respect of the rest of the land. N.O.C. was not obtained, but accused No.1 was insisting the complainant for payment of the rest of the amount. It was alleged that on 3rd July, 2003, accused No. 1 and one Jaywant Dhuri met the complainant. A sort of settlement was arrived at, and it was agreed that the meeting shall be held on 6th July, 2003. Accused No. 1 insisted that the complaint should arrange for payment of Rs.1,20,000/-. 3. On 5th July, 2003, the complainant left his home on his motor 3 bike. He was proceeding from the nearby Dhavadki, and at Madkhol Ghat Section, he had noticed the presence of accused No. 1 at the corner with his Maruti van. Accused No. 1 made a signal to the complainant to stop the bike, and the complainant noticed that four other persons were sitting in the van. The complainant stopped the motor bike, and all those four persons alighted from the vehicle, and by use of criminal force, they abducted the complainant into the said van, and made him to sit on the rear seat. The mouth of the complainant was gagged. Accused No. 1 was driving the van. Out of the four persons, one took the motor bike of the complainant and was following the van. It was then taken from Bordi Bridge towards Palane Kond Kunkeri into the forest, and cash of Rs. 2900/- lying in the shirt-pocket of the complainant was robbed, and thereafter, the complainant was stripped, and his hands were tied behind with nylon rope, and with a wheel spanner, accused No.1 started inflicting blows on the hands and legs of the complainant, whereas all other persons were inflicting kicks and blows on the complainant. 4. Now, the trial Court, on the above false allegations, found that although the occurrence had taken place allegedly on 5th July, 2003, the 4 complaint was registered with the police on 8th August, 2003, i.e., after 33 days. When the complainant was referred even after 8th August, 2003 to Dr. Dinesh Kale at Belgaum and Dr. Amol Pawaskar of Sawantwadi, he provided information to the Medical Practitioners about the history of the injuries, and stated that the injuries had been caused as a result of motor vehicle accident. After 33 days of the incident, the complainant had maintained that he was scared, as he was directed not to report the matter to the police, since he was threatened with dire consequences. Even after he approached the police and filed a complaint after 33 days, he did not disclose to the Medical Practitioners that the injuries had been suffered by him at the hands of the accused, but stated that the injuries were the result of a motor vehicle accident. Even in the F.I.R. which he filed after 33 days, he did not name the witness, who was accompanying him and who was the main eye- witness projected by the prosecution, whose name was Babya Sutar. 5. For these reasons, the trial Court did not believe the prosecution story, and we do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. Leave is refused. The application is dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. 5 ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.