IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2861 OF 2006 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ..APPLICANT V/S CHANDRABHAGA D. KADAM ..RESPONDENT MR. Y.M. NAKHWA, APP FOR THE STATE. SMT. VARSHA PALAV, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE : 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. 1. Heard learned APP for the State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. The State is challenging the order passed by the Special Judge, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur, who by his order dated 27-2-2006 acquitted the accused/Respondent for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(10) of the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The prosecution case is that the Respondent/Accused is the Head Mistress of the school. It is alleged that she abused the complainant on 30-04-2005 at 12.20 hours in public premises. It is alleged that the complainant Tanaji belongs to Scheduled caste and he was abused in the name of caste. In support of the prosecution case 5 witnesses were examined namely complainant, another assistant teacher, one Sunil Gurav and the Investigating officers. I have perused the impugned order. I have also perused the records and proceedings. From the evidence of these witnesses it can be seen that there are contradictions in their statements in respect of the place where the incident had occured. Further admittedly there is gross delay in filing the complaint which has not been properly explained by the prosecution. The Respondent/Accused succeeded in establishing that there was enimity between the complainant and accused. The trial court has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved its case against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. 3. In my view this is not a fit case for grant of leave to file Appeal. Leave is refused. --- (V.M. KANADE, J) (V.M. KANADE, J) (V.M. KANADE, J)