..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3699 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Shivaji Ananda Jadhav and 3 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.Sandesh Patil, Adv. a/w. Mr.Prashant Jadhav, Adv. for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 24.07.2007 passed by the learned Ist Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in S.C.No.33 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-orig. accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 r.w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned PP for the ..(2).. Applicant-State and the learned Advocate for the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 to 4. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. In the present case, it is not the prosecution case that any demand was made by the accused persons or that the deceased Geetanjali was harassed by the accused persons as the demand was not met. Respondent No.1 is the husband of Geetanjali. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 are the father and mother of respondent No.1 and Respondent No.4 is the sister of respondent No.1. 4. The complainant in the present case is PW-3 Mangal. Mangal was the mother of deceased Geetanjali. PW-3 Mangal has stated that the accused used to ill-treate Geetanjali as they used to doubt her character as Geetanjali was not talking to accused No.1. PW-3 Mangal has stated in her evidence that accused No.2 had beat Geetanjali in her presence. However, on perusal of the cross-examination of this witness, it is ..(3).. seen that the said statement is an omission. It is seen that this witness has made material improvements in her evidence and hence the testimony of this witness cannot be relied upon. 5. As far as the evidence of PW-4 Sonabai is concerned, she has deposed that the accused used to trouble Geetanjali as she could not cook. This witness has not stated the nature of trouble given by the accused to Geetanjali. Only vague and general averments have been made by this witness. PW-5 Santosh who is the brother of Geetanjali has stated that the accused used to suspect the character of his sister i.e. Geetanjali. This witness has further stated that the accused did not allow his sister Geetanjali to come to her maternal house. However, in the cross-examination, this witness has admitted that in his statement before the police he has not stated that the accused did not allow Geetanjali to come to Padali i.e. her maternal house. His testimony also shows that accused No.1 used to come to Padali to meet Geetanjali and whenever he used to visit the house of accused, he was treated ..(4).. properly. 6. PW-6 Maruti Katkar who is a relative of Geetanjali has not stated anything about the ill-treatment. In his evidence there is not even a whisper about the ill-treatment by the accused persons to Geetanjali. The evidence of PWs.7, 8 & 9 and the evidence of remaining witnesses is vague. They have not stated the nature of any ill-treatment by the accused persons to Geetanjali. Their evidence is very vague and general in nature. The evidence of PWs.3, 4, 5 & 6 is inconsistent and contradictory. The witnesses have stated totally different reasons for harassment to Geetanjali. It would not be safe to rely upon such contradictory evidence. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, in my opinion, the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. ..(5).. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)