1appa-3042-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION No. 3042/2010 (Leave to Appeal) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL No. /2010 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant/Appellant. (Original Complainant) versus Dnyanu Babu Bandgar .. Respondent (Original Accused) Ms M.H. Mhatre, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant/Appellant. CORAM:- D.D. SINHA AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 2nd September, 2010. P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant/Appellant. L 2appa-3042-10 2. The criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 9.4.2010, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, whereby the respondent/accused came to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 436, 427, 429 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in the instant case, the prosecution has examined two eye- witnesses to the incident, namely, PW1 Shantabai (complainant) and PW4 Subhadra. It is submitted that the evidence of these two witnesses is cogent, reliable and, therefore, ought to have been accepted by the trial Court. The ocular testimony of the eye- witnesses is also supported by the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is further contended that delay of four days in lodging first information report by the complainant has been satisfactorily explained by her in her evidence and, therefore, the delay in lodging first information report, in the present case, is not fatal to the prosecution. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Perused the judgment of the L 3appa-3042-10 trial Court. In the instant case, it has come in the evidence of the prosecution that relations between Shantabai (complainant) and the accused were not cordial. On the other hand, they were on inimical terms with each other. It is in the light of these undisputed facts, it is very difficult for us to reconcile that the accused after committing an offence, would enter into any kind of settlement with Shantabai (complainant). The incident had taken place on the night intervening 13.12.2008 / 14/12/2008, however, Shantabai (PW1), for the first time, lodged the complaint before the police on 18.12.2008. In the present case, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, delay in lodging first information report by the complainant, in our view, is fatal to the prosecution, which creates suspicion about the authenticity of the case of the prosecution. 5. It is well settled that so far as the jurisdiction of this Court while considering the appeal against the acquittal is concerned, is required to be exercised, only if the finding recorded by the trial Court is perverse and unsustainable in law. Same is not the case, in the present criminal appeal. L 4appa-3042-10 6. Hence, criminal appeal suffers from lack of merits. Criminal Application as well as the appeal, both, are dismissed. (D.D.SINHA,J) (A.R.JOSHI,J) L