..(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.2881 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus 1. Suman Ganpat Pawar, & 2. Balu @ Chandrakant Jaysing Pawar. ..Respondents. ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.Shrikant Yadav, Adv. for the Respondents. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 19th June, 2008. DATED : 19th June, 2008. DATED : 19th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 16th March, 2006 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.47 of 2004. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-orig.accused of the offence under Section 306 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under :- ..(2).. . Deceased Kashinath was married to Priyanka. Priyanka was the second wife of Kashinath. As the deceased used to beat Priyanka, she started residing at the house of her mother i.e. respondent No.1 at Datewadi, Respondent No.2 is the cousin of Priyanka. The deceased had lent an amount of Rs.15,000/- to respondent No.2. On 3rd December, 2003 the deceased Kashinath went to the house of accused No.2 to recover the amount from accused No.2. However, at that time he was beaten and insulted by both the accused. Thereafter Kashinath returned back to his village, but, he was mentally disturbed as he was insulted and beaten at the house of his in-laws. On 8th December, 2003 he left the house saying that he was going to bring his motorcycle. However, he did not return home on that day. On 9th December, 2003 in the early morning his dead body was found hanging from a rope tied to a branch of a tree located in his field. Thus, the prosecution case is that as Kashinath was beaten and insulted by both the accused on 3rd December, 2003, he committed suicide. ..(3).. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the record in the present case. 4. As per the prosecution witnesses PW-4 Shamrao and PW-7 Dhanaji who are father and brother of Kashinath respectively, Kashinath was insulted and beaten by the accused persons on 3rd December, 2003. The incident has occurred between 8th December, 2003 and 9th December, 2003. Neither PW-4 nor PW-7 are eye witnesses to the beating and insulting by the accused persons to Kashinath. On the other hand, the defence of the accused is that Kashinath was earlier married to one Vandana. His first wife had run away with another person. Priyanka is the second wife of Kashinath. However as he used to beat her, she left the house of the accused and she was residing with her mother accused No.1 at Datewadi. The case of the accused is that as the wives of Kashinath were not cohabiting with him, he committed suicide due to frustration. ..(4).. 5. The act of the accused is only that of abusing and beating Kashinath. It is not the prosecution case that any injury was caused to Kashinath due to the said beating. The act of the accused cannot be said to be such that it would cause a normal, prudent man to commit suicide. The act cannot be said that it would instigate a person to commit suicide. 6. The prosecution has also placed reliance on a letter which has allegedly been written by Kashinath. There is discrepancy regarding the case where the chit was found. Moreover it is seen that the said chit was not sent to the handwriting expert. In the present case, the prosecution has also seized a diary belonging to deceased Kashinath. The said diary was admittedly in the handwriting of the deceased. In such case, the chit and the diary could have been sent to the handwriting expert and the opinion of the handwriting expert could have been sought regarding the authorship of the chit. However no investigation has been done in this regard. In ..(5).. such case in the absence of the opinion of the handwriting expert it will not be safe to conclude that the paper chit is in the handwriting of the deceased. Even otherwise as observed above the act of the accused cannot be said to be such that they abetted or instigated Kashinath to commit suicide. 7. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all the above aspects into consideration and thereafter he has acquitted the respondents-orig.accused as stated above. 8. Looking to the evidence on record, I find the defence of the accused to be probable. Moreover, looking to the evidence on record I am of the opinion that 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. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)