1 crap870.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 870 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant (original complainant) VERSUS Babasaheb s/o Gosuram Shinde and others ...Respondents ..... Smt. Y.M.Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for applicant/State Shri Vivek Bhavthankar, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, J. DATED : 21 st 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 of acquittal, dated 16.10.2010, rendered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, in Sessions Case No. 28 of 2009, thereby acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the 2 crap870.11 offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 I have perused the impugned judgment and order, dated 16.10.2010 and the R. and P. with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties. 4 The parties herein after are referred as per their original status. 5 The respondents herein (original accused nos. 1 to 4) faced the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for having subjected Mrs.Surekha w/o respondent no.1 to cruelty on account of unlawful demand of Rs. 1,00,0000/- and further allegedly abetted to committal of suicide on 17.2.2009. Accused no.1 Babasaheb is the husband of deceased Surekha; whereas respondent no.2 Gosuram is her father-in-law and accused no.3 Kantabai is her mother-in-law and accused no.4 Suvarna is her sister-in-law. 6 Admittedly, the marriage between respondent no.1 and deceased Surekha took place about two years prior to the occurrence of the incident of committal of suicide by victim by 3 crap870.11 consuming poisonous substance, which occurred on 17.2.2009. 7 To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses, as mentioned below :- PW1 Karbhari Govindrao Shelke, complainant father of victim Surekha PW2 Bajirao Rangnath Shinde, Panch for inquest panchanama PW3 Baban Sukhdev Devkate, panch to spot panchanama PW4 Sopan, brother of complainant, who allegedly witnessed the illtreatment to Surekha and also witnessed the consumption of poisonous substance by victim Surekha. PW5 Dr. Nilesh Manikrao Rautmare, Medical Officer PW6 A.P.I. Jagannath Kashinath Pagar, investigating officer. 8 Admittedly, the prosecution has not examined any independent witness in respect of alleged unlawful demand of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the accused from deceased Surekha and also in respect of alleged illtreatment to her at the hands of the accused persons due to non-fulfillment of the said unlawful demand. Hence, 4 crap870.11 the testimonies of PW1 Karbhari Shelke and PW4 Sopan is the material evidence. However, the Trial Court disbelieved both the said testimonies. 9 As regards the testimony of PW2 Karbhari, learned Trial Court observed that his testimony revealed that the meeting of relatives was called, who persuaded the accused to treat Surekha nicely, but the prosecution has not examined any of the persons/relatives who attended the said meeting, and hence, the Trial Court observed that non-examination of those witnesses creates doubt upon the prosecution. 10 As regards the testimony of PW4 Sopan, who is the real younger brother of the complainant, the Trial Court observed that there are contradictions, lacunae and discrepancies in the said testimony. While considering his testimony, the learned Trial Judge observed that although he deposed that he witnessed the incident, dated 17.2.2009, he has not disclosed his reaction against the accused and his conduct appears to be unnatural and strange and even after consumption of poisonous substance by Surekha and abuses hurled towards her by the accused, as alleged how he remained silent spectator, was the question posed before the Trial Court. Moreover, the learned Trial Court observed that testimony of 5 crap870.11 PW4 Sopan creates doubt not only upon his credibility but also about his intimacy with his brother complainant, and apparently there is no flaw in the observations made by the Trial Court. 11 Having the survey of the evidence, learned Trial Judge observed that there is no cogent evidence establishing that deceased Surekha was really asked to bring amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and she was assaulted, abused or in any manner subjected to cruelty on her failure to fulfill their demand of Rs.1,00,000/-, and accordingly, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the accused had asked Surekha to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents and they subjected her to cruelty on her failure to fulfill the said demand, and the reasoning given therefor by the Trial Court apparently cannot be faulted with. 12 Besides, the observations made by the Trial Court in para no.21 of the impugned judgment in respect of non-application of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also regarding the presumption under Section 113 of the Indian Evidence Act also cannot be construed as out of place. 13 In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence, the view adopted by the Trial Court while acquitting the 6 crap870.11 accused appears to be possible view and same does not appear to be perverse, as well as no glaring defect is found therein, and therefore, no interference therein is called for in the appellate jurisdiction, and hence, present application deserves to be rejected. 14 In the result, present application, which is sans merits, stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused. R. and P. be sent back to the concerned Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE), JUDGE. dbm/crap870.11