1 cr-apln-2532-10 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2532 OF 2010 (FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant [Ori.Complainant] Vs. Uday Datta Mane ..Respondent [Ori.Accused] .... Smt. A.A.Mane APP for the Applicant-State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010 P.C. : 1 Leave to amend granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2 The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 18.2.10 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. Jaysingpur, Dist. Kolhapur in S.C.C. No. 768 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the respondent i.e. accused came to be acquitted of the offences under Sections 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC. 2 cr-apln-2532-10 2 The prosecution case briefly stated is that on 28.3.2008 at about 1.30 p.m. the accused came to the house of the complainant and asked her for water. At that time, he caught hold of her hand and started to pull her towards him. She raised hue and cry, whereupon the accused ran away from the spot. Thereafter, on 2.4.2008 the accused again came to her house and repeated the same act. Hence, FIR came to be lodged. After completion of investigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the respondent-accused. 3 I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate. I have also perused the evidence which was produced by the learned APP. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Magistrate does not call for any interference. 4 The prosecution has examined only four witnesses. Two of the witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. The last witness is the police witness who has recorded FIR. Thus, it is seen that 3 cr-apln-2532-10 the prosecution case is solely dependent on the evidence of PW 1 complainant. The case of the complainant is that immediately after the incident, she has informed this fact to her husband and other family members. However, none of her relatives including her husband, were examined in order to corroborate her case. Even as far as her evidence is concerned, it is seen that the incident had occurred on 28.3.2008. Thereafter, on 2.4.2008 the accused came to the house of the complainant and repeated the said act. Though the first incident occurred on 28.3.2008, the FIR has been lodged only on 3.4.2008. If the averments of the incident dated 28.3.2008 and 2.4.2008 are considered, verbatim the averments in respect of both the incidents are identical. This appears to be rather unnatural. Moreover, the delay in lodging FIR also raises doubt about the credibility of the case of the complainant. The learned Magistrate has taken into consideration all these aspects and thereafter, acquitted the respondent-accused. Hence, in my opinion, the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. 5 The plenitude of power available to the Court hearing an appeal against acquittal is the same as that available to a court hearing an appeal against an order of conviction, but, however, the court hearing 4 cr-apln-2532-10 an appeal against acquittal, will not interfere solely because a different plausible view may arise on the evidence. It has been so observed by the Supreme Court in K.Ramakrishnan Unnithan Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 1999 SC 1428. 6 So also, the Supreme Court in the case of C.Anthony Vs. K.G.Raghavan Nair reported in (2003) 1 SCC 1 has observed that while hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, if two reasonable conclusions can be reached on the basis of evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of the trial court. I have already observed that the view taken by the learned Magistrate is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. 7 In view of the above, application for leave to file appeal, is rejected. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]