[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.357 OF 2008 Shri.Vasant Bhaguji Kale ..Applicant Vs. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent ... Mr.Dilip Bodake advocate for applicant Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 7, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 7, 2008 DATE : AUGUST 7, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. By judgment and order dated 16.8.2003, the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C., Chandwad convicted the applicant under Section 354 of IPC. By the said judgment and order, the learned Magistrate sentenced him to suffer RI for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- i/d S.I. for 15 days. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred appeal which came to be dismissed, hence, this Revision. 2. I have heard the learned advocate for the applicant-original accused and the learned APP for the State. I have perused the judgment and orders [-2-] passed by the Courts below. 3. The complainant has stated that on 28.4.1998 at night time, when she went to answer call of nature, the applicant who was in an inebriated condition, caught hold of her hand and asked her to allow him to have sexual intercourse with her, hence, she lodged the FIR. The incident in question has taken place on 28.4.1998. The FIR has been lodged by the complainant-lady on 4.5.1998. No plausible explanation has been furnished by the complainant in respect of delay in lodging the FIR. 4. The prosecution has examined Anusuya who is the mother in law of the complainant. She has also stated about the incident, however, it is seen that the statement of Anusuya was also recorded after much delay. Moreover, Anusuya is highly interested witness. Both the Courts below have not properly considered this aspect of the matter. The inordinate delay in lodging the FIR raises serious doubt in the mind regarding veracity of the complaint. 5. Looking to the above facts, I find that the [-3-] evidence of the complainant and Anusuya cannot be said to be reliable. There is no other material which connects the applicant with the incident. Looking to the above facts, the applicant deserves to be acquitted. 6. In view of the above, the conviction and sentence imposed by judgment and order dated 16.12.2003 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate F.C. Chandwad in Summary Criminal Case No. 246 of 1998 and the judgment and order dated 1.8.2008 in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2005 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge-2, Niphad, are set aside. The applicant is acquitted of the offences under Sections 354 and 506 of IPC. The applicant be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case. 7. Revision is allowed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]