.{1}. 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.47 OF 2008 [FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Anil Shankar Rasal and 6 Ors. ..Respondents. .. Mr.A.S.Gadkari, APP, for the Applicant-State. .. CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND CORAM : S.B.MHASE AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : JANUARY 31, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 31, 2008. DATED : JANUARY 31, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Islampur, in Sessions Case No.31 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 7- orig.accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 313 read with 34 of IPC. .{2}. 2. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State and perused the record produced by the learned APP. 3. PW-2 Sandhyarani is the complainant in the present case. She has lodged a complaint against the respondents. Respondent No.1 is her husband and respondent Nos.2 to 7 are her in-laws. It is her case that during the period June 2004 to March 2005 she was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons because their illegal demand of Rs.50,000/- and ten tolas of gold was not met. It is her case that the accused persons have also caused her to miscarry her pregnancy without her consent. It is her specific case that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention caused miscarriage of her unborn child without her consent. 4. As far as charge under Section 313 IPC is concerned, PW-2 Sandhyarani has stated that in the year 2005 her husband (respondent No.1) took her to the hospital of Dr.Patil at Shirala for checkup. Thereafter, her husband forced her to terminate her pregnancy against her will. Dr.Patil who had .{3}. terminated the pregnancy has been examined. Dr.Patil in his evidence has stated that on 20.10.2005 one Sandhyarani Rasal and her husband had come to his hospital at 5 p.m. with complaint of pains in abdomen of Sandhyarani. There was bleeding going on for last two days. Dr.Patil examined Sandhyarani and after examination he found that there was bleeding per vagina, he advised them that these are the signs of abortion and it was necessary to do abortion. Dr.Patil has further stated in his evidence that if abortion would not have been done, bleeding would have increased and it would have endangered the life of Sandhyarani. As per the advise of Dr.Patil, the complainant Sandhyarani and her husband (accused No.1) came to his hospital on the next day and with their consent he did suction evacuation (abortion). Dr.Patil has further stated in his evidence that the consent form (Exh.21) was filled in by Sandhyarani in his presence and it was signed by Anil Rasal and his wife Sandhyarani. According to DW.1 Dr.Patil the abortion was done as there was acute emergency. We do not find anything in the evidence of this witness so as to disbelieve his version. Moreover, it is seen that PW-5 who is the investigating officer has .{4}. admitted in his cross-examination that it transpired in the investigation that the complainant Sandhyarani went to the hospital of Dr.Patil on 20.10.2005 and abortion was done on 21.10.2005 with her consent. This evidence totally falsifies the prosecution case that the miscarriage was done against the will of the complainant. 5. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that there is gross delay in lodging the complaint in the present case. The abortion was caused on 21.10.2005. The complainant has made a grievance about it in her complaint only on 12.6.2006. No any explanation is given on behalf of the prosecution as to why the complainant kept quiet for such a long period. This inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the complainant in lodging the complaint itself raises grave doubt in mind about the genuineness of the case of the complainant. 6. As far as charge under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the evidence given by the witnesses in respect of the allegations regarding ill-treatment is totally vague. No details have been given in the .{5}. evidence as to which accused, at what place and at what time or during which period of time the complainant was ill-treated by the witnesses. Moreover, it is seen from the record PW-2 Sandhyarani has filed one application for maintenance against her husband in Karad Court. The complainant has admitted that she has filed said application against her husband. If the contents of said application are perused, we will find that the complainant has not stated in the said application that the accused demanded cash of Rs.50,000/- for jewellery shop and ten tolas of gold. The said application is filed subsequent to present complaint yet we do not find any specific allegation of demand of cash of Rs.50,000/- and ten tolas of gold in the said application. Moreover, as far as charge under Section 498-A is concerned, there are discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence of PW-2 Sandhyarani and PW-3 Sadashiv Yadav, who is the father of complainant. 7. The case of the complainant is also that one day she saw a photograph of a woman in the purse of her husband and on inquiry her husband told her that said .{6}. photograph is of his keep i.e. mistress. However, as far as this aspect is concerned, the complainant Sandhyarani has not deposed about this in her evidence in the Court, hence we cannot look into this aspect. 8. As stated earlier by us, there is inordinate and unexplained delay in lodging the complaint. As per the complainant the incidence of ill-treatment occurred upto March 2005. However, the complaint is lodged by her only on 12.6.2006. There is gross delay in lodging the complaint. We have already expressed that the said delay was not at all explained by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all the above aspects and has thereafter acquitted the respondents-accused. 9. Looking to the evidence record, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 10. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then the mere .{7}. circumstance that the lower Court could have taken a different view, would be no ground to interfere. In this connection, there is no dearth of authorities but to eschew prolixity, we are referring to only two of them i.e. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. AIR 1971 SC 66 Khedu Mohton and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Vs. State of Bihar and C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1 Nair, (2003) 1 SCC 1. In the case of C.Anthony C.Anthony C.Anthony, the Supreme Court has observed that unless the findings of the trial Court are perverse or contrary to the material on record, the High Court cannot in Appeal substitute its findings, merely because another contrary opinion was possible on the basis of material on record. As stated earlier, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [S.B.MHASE,J.]