1 rma IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 400 OF 2000 Shailesh Shantilal Joshi & Anr .. Petitioner Vs The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent S.B. Shetye for the petitioners Ms. S.D. Shinde, APP for the State CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ DATE : 13th APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner- original accused nos. 1 and 2 and learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 16.07.1997, learned IVth Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane convicted the petitioners - original accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 498A read with 34 of IPC. Petitioner No. 1 - original accused no. 1 was sentenced to RI for one year and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months. Petitioner No. 2 - original accused no. 2 being a lady was sentenced to simple imprisonment till rising of the court and fine of Rs. 5000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months. The appeal preferred by both the petitioners came to be dismissed. Hence, this revision. 2.revn400-00 2 3. The marriage of deceased Daksha and petitioner no. 1 took place on 19.05.1994. From 01.06.1994 to 18.06.1994, Daksha resided with her mother as her father had gone out of station and there was no one to look after her mother. On 18.06.1994, Daksha returned back to her matrimonial house and on 19.06.1994, she expired. Postmortem was conducted on the body of Daksha. Two ribs and sternum of Daksha was found fractured and one of the broken ribs had caused rupture of lung which caused her death. The defence of the petitioners is that Daksha sustained injuries due to fall. 4. Though Daksha died on 19.06.1994, FIR came to be lodged by her father PW1 Karsanji only on 09.07.1994. It is pertinent to note that on 19.06.1994 itself, statement of Karsanji came to be recorded, however, in that statement, he did not allege anything against the petitioners. It is for the first time on 09.07.1994 in his FIR that the complainant PW1 Karsanji stated that he has suspicion regarding the death of Daksha and he has stated about harassment to Daksha by the petitioners. First of all, there is absence of allegations in the first statement of the complaint dated 19.06.1994. This coupled with the fact that there is inordinate delay in lodging the FIR for which no reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution, has not been properly taken note of by both the Courts below. I find 2.revn400-00 3 that a manifest error has crept in appreciation of evidence by both the Courts below. Both the Courts below have ignored this vital aspect. This delay itself goes to the root of prosecution case and shakes its very foundation. This long unexplained delay in the facts of this case renders the entire prosecution case suspect. Looking to this inordinate delay in lodging the FIR for which no reasonable or plausible explanation has been provided and the fact that in the first statement which was recorded on 19.06.1994 itself, the complainant Karsanji who is the father of deceased Daksha has not made any allegations against any of the petitioners - accused persons, the revision deserved to be allowed. 5. The judgment and order dated 16.07.1999 passed by learned IVth Assistant Sessions Judge, Thane convicting the petitioners - original accused nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under sections 498A read with 34 of IPC is hereby set aside and both the petitioners are acquitted of the said offence. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. 6. Revision application is disposed of accordingly. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 2.revn400-00 4 2.revn400-00