{1} Cri. Application No.1313/2011 drp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1313 OF 2011 The Stat of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Dharmanath Sominath Bade & others RESPONDENTS ....... Mrs.S.D.Shelke, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 21 st July 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. By the present application, the applicant / State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 15.12.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No.142/2007, thereby acquitting the respondent- accused for an offence punishable u/s 498A, 304B, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. We have heard learned APP and we have perused the impugned judgment as well as the record and proceedings. {2} Cri. Application No.1313/2011 2. It appears that on 21.10.2006, on the report (Exhibit-33) lodged by PW-1 Damodhar, father of deceased Charuta @ Surekha, an offence at Crime No.171/2006 was registered in Shevgaon police station against the respondent-accused. Previously, an AD No.87/2006 was registered on the report lodged by respondent No.1 Dharmanath on 19.10.2006 in respect of the same incident. During the inquiry of the said AD, inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-61) and Spot Panchanama (Exhibit-62) were drawn and the dead body was referred for postmortem. Postmortem was conducted by PW-6 Dr.Kadam and accordingly PM report (Exhibit-58) was prepared. It was prima facie opined that the death caused due to asphyxia resulting from drowning. However, after receipt of report from CA it was opined that the death caused due to cardio respiratory arrest due to organo phosphorus (Rogor) dimenthoate poison, associated with drowning. During the investigation two letters (Exhibit-31 & 32), allegedly written by the deceased, were seized from the house of the father of the deceased. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined in all 7 witnesses before the trial court as against this respondent-accused examined DW-1 respondent No.3 Janabai and DW-2 Mansajan Palve, father of respondent, No.5 in their defence. Trial court discarded the prosecution evidence and acquitted the respondent- accused of all the charges. 3. Admittedly, marriage of deceased Charuta was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 19.05.2005. It is also not {3} Cri. Application No.1313/2011 disputed that death of Charuta is an unnatural death and has occurred within 7 years of her marriage. Dead body of Charuta was found drowned in a well on 21.10.2006 and as per the medical evidence the death has occurred within 48 hours before the postmortem was conducted on 21.10.2006. 4. Prosecution has mainly relied on the evidence of PW-1 Damodhar, father of the deceased, PW-2 Paraji friend of PW-1 and PW-4 Charudatta nephew of PW-1, on the point of harassment of the deceased by the respondent-accused. PW-1 Damodhar has stated that at the time of marriage of the deceased with respondent No.1, dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- was settled and Rs.50,000/- were paid prior to marriage and balance amount was due. Initially, for about 4 to 6 months, Charuta was treated well, however, subsequently, respondent-accused started harassing her on account of demand of balance amount of dowry. PW-1 has stated that deceased was brought back to her maternal house and she stayed there for 4/5 months. Thereafter, respondent-accused brought her back to her matrimonial house, on the assurance that they would not harass her. 5. During the inquiry of AD, statement of PW-1 Damodhar was recorded on 20.10.2006, however, the same is conspicuously silent as regards harassment of the deceased on account of balance amount of dowry and that deceased had came to her maternal house as her father could not fulfill the demand of {4} Cri. Application No.1313/2011 dowry and stayed there till 20.06.2006. 6. Prosecution has heavily relied on two letters, dated 15.05.2006 (Exhibit-31) and dated 17.05.2006 (Exhibit-32) allegedly written by the deceased contending harassment by the respondent-accused and had expressed apprehension of her life. These letters are seized from the house of PW-1 and cross examination of PW-1 reveals that the said letters are written by the deceased when she was residing at her parents house. PW-4 and PW-7 also refer these letters and claim that they came to know about harassment to the deceased from the said letters. Trial court discarded evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-4 on the ground that the prosecution has failed to establish that the letters are actually written by the deceased and secondly as at the material time the deceased was staying at her parents house, it is not possible that the letters might have been addressed from her matrimonial house. 7. It has came in the cross examination of PW-1 Damodhar that on 18.10.2006, a day prior to the incident, he had been to the matrimonial house of the deceased and the Deewali festival was ahead a week and the deceased was insisting him to take her to her parents house for Deewali festival, however, PW-1 father of the deceased declined to take her with him and informed her that he in fact intended to visit the house of his another daughter, at that time respondent No.1 had accompanied him for some distance. In the next morning the deceased was found {5} Cri. Application No.1313/2011 missing and hence missing report was lodged by respondent No.1. Though these facts are denied by PW-1 in his evidence before the court, yet the same found reflected in his statement recorded during the inquiry of the AD, on 20.10.2006. Thus, the trial court came to the conclusion that no evidence has come on record that there was harassment to the deceased soon before the incident of finding of the dead body, which compelled her to commit suicide. In the premise, for want of evidence on the point of cruelty on account of demand of money and also in absence of any evidence that soon before the death, there was harassment to the deceased by the respondent-accused, the trial court discarded the evidence of prosecution witnesses and acquitted the respondent-accused. 8. DW-2, father of respondent No.5, a close relative of PW-1 and mediator of marriage between the deceased and respondent No.1, states about financial condition of both the parties and that as Charuta was fair her marriage was settled with respondent No.1 without any money. This evidence is also accepted by the trial court while acquitting the respondent-accused. 9. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order so also the record and proceedings, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court is a probable view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. Moreover, we do not find any fault, much less, perversity, in the findings recorded by the trial court while acquitting the respondent-accused. In the premise, the {6} Cri. Application No.1313/2011 application deserves to be dismissed. 10. Consequently, the application, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B11/criapln1313-11