1 Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.4 OF 2011 Imamoddin Noor Mohammad APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others RESPONDENTS Mr.V.Y.Bhide h/f.Mr.R.S.Shinde, learned counsel for the appellant. Mr.K.G.Patil, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, learned counsel for respondents no.2 to 6. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 15/02/2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. This is an appeal filed by the complainant challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhule dated 13/08/2010 in Sessions Case No.123/2009, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable u/s.304B, 306, 498A, 323, 504, 506 r/w. 34 of The IPC and U/S. 3,4 of The Dowry Prohibition Act. On the basis of the complaint lodged by P.W.No.1 Imamoddin Noor Mohammad, father of deceased Nazmin, the aforesaid offences came to be registered. Upon registration of the offences, the investigation in that behalf commenced. During the trial, the prosecution adduced 2 Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2011 the evidence of only 3 witnesses, out of which P.W.No.3 did not support the prosecution and was declared hostile. Nothing of importance was elicited in the cross examination of P.W.No.3, which would in any manner assist the prosecution case. The entire allegations against the respondents accused rest on the testimony of P.W.No.1 Imamoddin, father of deceased Nazmin and P.W.No.2 Nasim Bano, mother of deceased Nazmin. Evidence of both these witnesses indicates that the accused were demanding an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- for stating a grocery shop and on failure of the parents of deceased Nazmin to meet the illegal demand, the deceased was harassed. The allegations of illtreatment are extremely vague. Both the witnesses only state that there was harassment and beyond stating that there was harassment, no specific instances of harassment are given. The cross examination of these witnesses further indicates that there are material omissions in respect of the allegations regarding harassment. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence of these witnesses found that no reliance at all can be placed on the evidence of these witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court, therefore, gave benefit of doubt to the respondents accused and acquitted them. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and also perused the copies of the evidence which have been made available to us across the bar by the learned counsels for the parties. Upon such perusal, we are of the considered opinion that there is no perversity 3 Criminal Appeal No.4 of 2011 in the findings recorded by the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. The view taken by the Trial Court appears to be a possible view, to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. In that light of the matter, their being no merit in the present appeal, the present appeal is therefore summarily dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/FEB. 2011/cri.appeal 4-11