[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.4165 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Ramesh Vasant Nazarkar and 9 Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the Respondents-accused. 2. By judgment and order dated 7.9.2007 passed in Sessions Case No.116 of 2006, the learned Special Judge, Pandharpur has acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323 r.w. Section 149, 504 r.w. Section 149 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and also for the offences under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and under Section 7(1)(d) of [-2-] Protection of Civil Rights Act. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the State. Perused the judgment and order and the evidence produced by the learned APP. 4. There was a property dispute between the complainant and the accused persons. The incident in question has occurred on 5.9.2006 at 7.00 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. However, the complaint has been lodged on 7.9.2006 at 16.30 hours i.e. after 44 hours of the occurrence of the incident. No satisfactory explanation has been brought on record by the prosecution for the delay in filing the complaint. There are three eye witnesses i.e. complainant Sukhdeo, P.W.4 Vipul and P.W.8 Vilas Bansode. The statement of P.W.4 Vipul was recorded after much delay. Vipul claims to be the nephew of the complainant. He states that he saw his uncle being assaulted by the accused persons. However, this witness has not made any attempt to intervene in the quarrel. On the other hand, this witness went home quietly and calmly and did not inform the incident to any one else. It is pertinent to note that in his cross examination he has stated that [-3-] his statement was not recorded by the police and the police did not make any enquiry with him regarding the incident and the police did not come to him. He further stated in the cross-examination that the statement made by him today in the Court, is made by him for the first time. This also renders the presence of this witness on the spot during the incident as being doubtful. 5. As far as the offence under Section 323 of IPC, no medical evidence has been brought on record. The complainant has stated that he went to the hospital but no medical officer was present there. On the other hand, P.W.10 Dr.Madhusudan Gunhankar has stated that hospital has sufficient staff and medical services are provided in the hospital round the clock. The evidence of Doctor falsifies the statement made by the complainant. 6. One more witness has been examined by the prosecution i.e. P.W.8 Vilas Bansode. This witness has stated that he saw all the accused persons assaulting the complainant and at that time, the accused persons abused the complainant as "Mhargya, Dhedgya, Tumhala Lai Rug Ali". However, [-4-] this portion in his evidence i.e. "Mhargya, Dhedgya, Tumhala Lai Rug Ali" has been proved to be an omission. This omission seriously affects the prosecution case. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Special Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 7. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]