(1) CRI.APP. 574.2010+1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 574 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 575 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra Through : Public Prosecutor, High Court Bench at Aurnagabad .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Jakir Shaikh Ahamad Khatik 2. Haji Ahamad Shaikh Rashid Khatik 3. Jaibunnisabi Shaikh Ahamad Khatik 4. Ayashabi @ Munni Shaikh Ahamad Khatik .. Respondents Mrs. B.R. Khekale, APP for the Applicant-State Mr. R.S. Shinde, Advocate h/f. Mr. N.L. Choudhari, Advcoate for the respondents ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. These are Applications for condonation of delay and for leave to Appeal. The delay is of 7 days. The explanation given in the Application shows that the delay is un-intentional. Consequently, I accept the explanation and condone the delay. (2) CRI.APP. 574.2010+1 2. So far as the acquittal of the respondents for offences under section 498-A, 306, 504 and 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it appears that the prosecution examined two neighbours i.e. PW 3 Jafar and PW 4 Mulambi. The trial Court rejected their versions for the reason that they had not disclosed such instance of cruelty to parents of the deceased during prolonged period of the matrimonial life of the deceased by name Nafisabi. The marriage was performed in 1996. The respondent no.1 Jakir was working a primary teacher in the school. The deceased had begotten four children. Her dead body was found hanging to a rafter in the matrimonial house. The incident occurred on 27.6.2007. 3. It appears that the prosecution examined four witnsses in support of its case, who are PW 1 Mohammad Yusuf and PW 2 Haji Gulab Nabi. They are complainant and his real brother. The other two witnesses were examined on the ground that they were (3) CRI.APP. 574.2010+1 neighbours. It has come on record that other two witneeses PW 3 Jafar and PW 4 Mulambi are also closely related to complainant Mohamammad Yusuf. Secondly, the marriage was performed about 11 years and the FIR discloses that after about 1-1/2 year, the cruel treatment was meted out to deceased Nafisabi. If she was being beaten up by the respondent no.1 as stated by PW Jafar then, there is no reason why he immediately did not ask her father to take appropriate action. He also did not explain why he did not intervene when she was closely related to him. 4. The learned Sessions Judge has given adequate reasons to dislodge the vague versions of the witnesses which are inter-related. Not much substantial reason is noticed to grant leave to appeal. Hence, the Application is dismissed. Leave refused. Appeal is disposed of. Both the Applications are disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp