.{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.48 OF 2008 [FOR LEAVE TO FILE APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Ankush Govind Pawar and 3 Ors. ..Respondents. .. Smt.A.S.Pai, 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 10.09.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khed, District-Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No.4 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent Nos.1 to 4- orig.accused of the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 504 and 506 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. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.10.2004 the accused persons have assaulted deceased Bandu Pawar. As per the prosecution case, PW-2 Rajesh Pawar and PW-3 Naresh Jadhav are the eye witnesses to the incident. PW-2 Rajesh Pawar is the nephew of deceased Bandu. As far as PW-3 Naresh Jadhav is concerned deceased Bandu was his maternal uncle i.e. real brother of his mother. Besides the evidence of these two eye witnesses, it is the prosecution case that deceased Bandu made a oral dying declaration to his sister i.e. PW-1 Vandana who is also the complainant in the present case. 4. In the present case, the cause of death is given as septicemic shock due to peritonitis. 5. The learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents mainly on the ground that there was gross delay in filing the FIR. The incident in question has taken place on 31.10.2004 at about 6:30 pm. The FIR is lodged on 2.11.2004. No plausible explanation .{3}. has come forward from the prosecution to explain the delay in filing the FIR. The two eye witnesses are closely related to the deceased Bandu. Both of them are the nephews of deceased Bandu, despite this fact, they have not cared to inform the police about the incident immediately. So also though it is the case of the complainant PW-1 Vandana, who is the sister of deceased Bandu, that her brother informed her that the accused persons had assaulted him, she has also made no attempts to inform the police immediately. Thus, it is seen that there is gross delay in lodging the FIR in the present case. The said delay is not explained by the prosecution. Moreover, the two eye witnesses are interested witnesses. Both of them are closely related to the deceased Bandu. Looking to the delay on the part of the witnesses in giving their complaints and their statements, we find that it raises a serious doubt in the mind regarding the reliability and credibility of these witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration and has thereafter acquitted the respondents-accused . 6. Looking to the record, we are of the opinion .{4}. that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. 7. It is well settled that if the view of acquittal could have been reasonably arrived at then mere circumstance that the lower Court would 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.]