( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2832 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2831 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Rajendra Shankar Ghodke & others RESPONDENTS .... Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the applicant/State. Mr. S.A. Wakure, advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 4. .... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 30th September, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard learned A.P.P. and learned advocate for the respondents. 2. There is delay of only eight (8) days in filing of the criminal application for leave to appeal. The applicant- State submitted explanation to the effect that the proposal for preferring appeal was required to be processed and due to administrative exigency, the delay has occurred. The delay appears to be marginal. The delay is, therefore, condoned. ( 2 ) 3. Perusal of the impugned judgement in Sessions Case No. 68/2008 prima facie shows that there was no inordinate delay in filing of the FIR. The death of Rajashri (victim) occurred within period of three (3) years of the marriage. She allegedly committed suicide by dousing herself with kerosene and set fire to her person. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have observed that there was delay in filing of the FIR. The explanation of the father of the deceased was that after the funeral, he went to Kallam and lodged the FIR. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that after death of the daughter, any father is likely to be under mental distress and, therefore, immediate act of filing the FIR itself is likely to be rather motivated, if other relatives or friends so advised him to do. The learned Sessions Judge seems to have observed that PW Shantabai is an interested witness because she is natural mother of deceased Rajashri. In such a case, when the matrimonial relatives are supposed to spell out the cruelty meted out to the married woman, it is improper to brand such relatives as interest witnesses. Under these circumstances, the leave to appeal is granted. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of. 4. Admit the appeal. Learned advocate Mr. S.R. Wakure ( 3 ) waives service for the respondents and hence, no action under section 390 is warranted. Call for the R & P. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/criapln2832-10