rpa 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.4105 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4105 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4105 OF 2008 IN IN IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicants Vs. Lalita Shyamlal Rohidas & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.A.T.Zaveri, A.P.P. for the State. None for Respondents. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. CORAM : A.S.Oka, J. DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2009 DATED : 5TH JANUARY, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard learned A.P.P. in support of this Application for grant of leave to prefer an Appeal. The Respondents were prosecuted for the offences punishable under section 306, 452, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. By the impugned Judgment and order dated 31st July, 2008, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge convicted the Respondents for the offence punishable under section 452 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The ( 2 ) Respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under section 306, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the daughter of the complainant committed suicide on 28th May, 2003 by jumping into the well in the premises of R.B.H.High School, Malegaon. The dead body was sent for post mortem after drawing of inquest panchanama. The spot panchanama was also prepared. It appears that an offence was not immediately registered by the Police. The case of the prosecution is that on 25th July, 2004 at about 7.00 p.m., when the complainant was in his house, the first and second Respondents under influence of liquor started abusing him and his family. When the complainant and his brother questioned him, the Respondents rushed to the house of the complainant. The door of the house was closed. It is alleged that the first and second Respondents gave kicks to the door and opened the same. Third and fifth Respondents forcibly entered into the house. The first accused caught the collar of the complainant and abused him and stated that his daughter committed ( 3 ) suicide only due to him (the first Respondent). According to the complainant, the first Respondent stated that he had threatened his daughter and therefore his daughter committed suicide. On the basis of the alleged incident of 25th July, 2004, the complainant lodged a complaint before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on 11th August, 2004. 3. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the allegation of an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code has not been proved. The learned Judge considered the aspect of delay of more than one year in lodging the complaint and disbelieved the case the prosecution as regards commission of offence under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. 4. The learned A.P.P. submitted though there was a delay, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was sufficient to prove the commission of offence punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code. Her submission is that considering the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the delay is not at all fatal to the prosecution case. ( 4 ) 5. I have considered the submissions. I have perused the impugned Judgment. As stated earlier, for the incident of 28th May, 2003, the complaint was lodged by the complainant belatedly. Assuming that the complainant became aware of the offence on 25th July, 2004, the complaint was not lodged immediately and the complainant waited till 11th August, 2004 to lodge the complaint. It is pertinent to note that on the receipt of the information of the incident of 28th May, 2003, an inquest panchanama and spot panchanama were drawn by the police and the body was sent for post mortem. The police registered accidental death on 27th May, 2003. The learned Judge referred the evidence of the complainant in which he has stated that he has seen the first Respondent teasing his daughter. After considering all these aspects, due to inordinate delay of more than one year in lodging the complaint, the leaned Trial Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution. Considering the length of the delay, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is certainly a possible view. Even assuming that a different view can be taken on the basis of the same ( 5 ) evidence, no interference can be made in an appeal against the acquittal. 6. Hence, no case is made out for grant of leave. The application is, accordingly, rejected. (A.S.Oka, J.) (A.S.Oka, J.) (A.S.Oka, J.)