State Of Maharashtra Thr. P.S.O., P.S. Ashti,Dist. Wardha v. Vinayak S/O. Narayan Hedau

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.255 OF 2019 (The State of Maharashtra thr. PSO PS Ashti, Dist. Wardha Vs. Vinayak s/o Narayan Hedau) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

and Registrar's Orders.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri N.B. Jawade, APP for Appellant/State.

Shri D.L. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM: ROHIT B. DEO, J.

DATE: 12 th JUNE, 2019.

Heard.

2] This is an application for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing application for leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

3] For reasons stated in the application, the delay is condoned.

Criminal Application No. /2019:

The State is seeking leave to appeal.

2] The learned Magistrate has acquitted the non-applicant - accused for offence punishable under Section 354-A(2) of the Indian Penal Code.

3] The alleged incident took place at 08:30 a.m. at a bus stop. PW 1 alleges that the accused, who is a Tempo Trax Driver, asked her to board in the vehicle, which she refused. The accused is alleged to have caught hold of the hand of PW 1 who was rescued by PW 4 Laxman.

4] The previous strained relationship between the family of the complainant and the accused has come on record.

5] The learned Magistrate has appreciated the evidence of the material eye witnesses and recorded a finding that the prosecution has not brought home the charge beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of Bhimrao who is examined on behalf of the accused.

6] The defence is that there is an altercation at the spot between the accused and the father of the complainant i.e. PW 2 and the complainant PW 1 pelted stones on the vehicle. The defence is that the First Information Report lodged by the complainant is only to wriggle out of consequences of the role played by PW 1 and PW 2 in the alleged altercation.

7] The learned Magistrate having arrived at a conclusion which is a possible and at any rate a plausible conclusion, I am not inclined to grant leave to the State to

appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

8] No case is made out for grant of leave. The application is rejected.

JUDGE NSN