1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4382 OF 2007 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST. NO. 864 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra, through S.H.O. Nilanga Police Station, Taluka Nilanga, District Latur ...Appellant (Original complainant) VERSUS 1 Raju @ Prakash s/o Shivram Kamble, aged 32 years, occ. Labour, 2 Malanbai w/o Shivram Kamble, age 55 years, occ. Nil, Both r/o Nilkantheshwar Market, Nilanga, Tq. Nilanga, Dist. Latur ...Respondents (Original accused) ..... Shri K.S.Patil, APP for the applicant ..... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 22.01.2010 ORAL ORDER 1 Since by our order passed today in Criminal Application 2 No. 4383 of 2007, we have condoned the delay, learned A.P.P. requests that this application, which is filed by the applicant/State, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, dated 26.7.2007, in Sessions Case No. 22 of 2006, acquitting the respondents, be heard for admission. At the request of learned A.P.P., therefore, this application is heard, though it is not registered as such. 2 The applicant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment, by which the respondents came to be acquitted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the alternate charge under Section 304-B r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 It appears that deceased Sangita was married to respondent no.1. It also appears that the first marriage of respondent no.1 was subsisting when he entered into matrimonial ties with deceased Sangita. In the light of such uncontroverted evidence, the Trial Court has held that offence punishable under Section 498-A or Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code cannot be held to have been proved against the respondents. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the presumptions raised in Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act were inapplicable to the case of the applicant. Undisputedly, deceased 3 Sangita had succumbed to the burn injuries on 4.5.2006 in the house of respondent no.1. There is no evidence whatsoever that death of deceased Sangita was as a result of suicide, which Sangita had committed on account of the instigation given to her by the respondents. In fact, there was no evidence on record to establish that the deceased Sangita had committed suicide, and therefore, possibility of death due to accidental burns could not be ruled out. In any event, harassment/cruelty, which is alleged against the respondents is not sufficient to establish that the respondents had abetted the commission of suicide. Abetment to commit the suicide would contemplate intentional aid and instigation and the conduct should be of such gravity as would drive a person to commit suicide. This obviously had not been intended by the respondents and in any event this has not been established by the prosecution. 4 After giving our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us by learned A.P.P. for the applicant and after perusing the findings recorded by the Trial Court, according to us, the judgment of the Trial Court does not require any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in 4 this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, this application fails and is dismissed. Leave refused. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) dbm/crap4382.07