1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5289/2010 The State of Maharashtra. Applicant V E R S U S Balu Kandarphale and another. Respondents Shri B.V.Wagh APP for applicant. Shri R.K.Ashtekar ,Advocate for the respondents. === CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 29 th JUNE, 2011. === PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 20.8.2010 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in S.C.No.76/2009, thereby acquitting the respondents/original accused for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. (The parties are herein after referred to as per their original status as ‘complainant’ and ‘accused’]. 2 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case is that :- Deceased Meera married to accused No.1 about 10-12 years back and said couple was blessed with three children. Accused No.2 Tanaji is the brother of accused No.1. It is alleged that accused No.1 and 2 were residing jointly and they were running a Mess and Meera used to do house hold work. It is also stated after death of Shivaji i.e another brother of accused, both the accused started beating, abusing and harrasing Meera saying that as to why she wandered here and there and suspected about her fidelity. Meera disclosed about the said ill-treatment to complainant i.e. father P.W.2 Janardhan Kele as well as her mother PW 3 Sulochana Kele. It is further alleged that about 10-12 days prior to the occurrence of the incident i.e. on 7.12.2008 victim Meera came to complainants house and disclosed him about continuous ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the accused and she was fed up with the said ill treatment and even stated that she would not go to her matrimonial house. Accordingly, she stayed for 4-5 days. There after complainant called his son-in-law namely Madhukar Dhormare and his daughter Alka Madhukar Dhormare, to whom also deceased Meera disclosed about the ill treatment upon which Madhukar Dhormare and Alka persuaded Meera and sent her to matrimonial house. It is further alleged that on 6.12.2008 at 3 about 8.00 a.m. to 8.30 a.m. while the complainant was present in the house, he learnt about the death of his daughter Meera at his matrimonial home due to burns. Accordingly Meera committed suicide by setting herself ablazed since she was fed up of ill-treatment at the hands of the accused. 4. To substantiate the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined as many as five witnesses as mentioned below : i] PW1 Shreemant Ambaji Kele (Panch witness to spot panchnama Exh.25. ii] PW 2 Janardhan Ambaji Kele – complainant, father of victim. iii] PW 3 Sulochana Janardhan Kele – Mother of victim. iv] Madhukar Dhormare Son in law of the complainant Janardan v] PW 5 Dattatraya Sonnar PSI Investigating Officer. 5. The defence of the accused is of total denial and false implication of the accused in the present case. According to the accused, deceased was suffering from stomach ache and villagers were coming and telling her that her mother used to practice black magic due to which deceased was disturbed and deceased disclosed said fact to accused No.1, and accused No.1 told her to persuade her mother, but she committed suicide as she was fed up due to the activities of her mother. 4 6. However, although incident occurred during the intervening night between 5.12.2008 to 6.12.2008, it appears that First Information Report came to be lodged on 7.12.2008 at 12.00 hours, and pertinently different explanations have been given by PW 2 Janardhan and PW 3 Sulochana in respect of the said delay. Therefore, learned trial court rightly observed that said explanation is not satisfactory, convincing and reliable. There was also inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and apparently, there is no flaw in the said observation. 7. Apparently on the face of said defence, put forth by the accused, it is significant to note that prosecution has not proved and established the very ill-treatment meted out to the victim Meera by examining independent witness. Moreover, witnesses examined by the prosecution i.e. PW 2 Janardhan and PW 3 Meera and PW 4 Madhukar Dhormare have not given any particulars of the alleged ill treatment,harassment meted out to the victim Meera and no specific date, month and year have been stated by them in respect of the alleged ill treatment meted out to deceased Meera. Moreover, learned trial court observed that, presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act is not at all attracted, since death of Meera has not been occurred within seven years of the marriage and prosecution failed to prove the alleged cruelty 5 to Meera by the accused and apparently said observation and finding cannot be faulted with. It is further observed that there is nothing on record to indicate that the accused instigated or intentionally aided and abted the deceased to commit suicide and prosecution has failed to prove the ingredients of the charges levelled against the accused and said observation and finding also do not appear to be out of place. 8. In the circumstances, after analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court while acquitting the accused is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse and reasoning given there for also cannot be faulted with and therefore, no interference therein is called for in the appellate jurisdiction and hence present application deserves to be rejected. 9. In the result, present application bears no substance hence rejected. Leave to file appeal is refused. Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ... aaa/5289.10