1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.4108 of 2008 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. .. Applicant (Orig. Complainant) v/s. Anil Ramchandra Sutar & anr. .. .. Respondents (Orig.Accused Nos.1 & 2) Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for State-Applicant. Mr.S.A. Ingawale for Respondents. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. Dated : 17th September, 2009 P.C. : 1.This is an Application filed by the State under Section 378(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur on 12.8.2008 in Sessions Case No.13 of 2008. The Respondents (original accused) i.e. husband and the mother-in-law respectively of the deceased-Manisha were put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that Manisha died an accidental death while she was drawing water from the well to wash the cloths and looking at 2 the spot panchanama, Exhibit-11, and the inquest, it was not possible that it was a suicidal death. The trial Court noted that it was a common well where the villagers used to wash clothes and it had a diameter of 16 ft. and a depth of 25 ft. It was a well constructed in stones and had a parapet wall of 1 & ½ ft. in height. One plastic can having a rope tied to it was noticed floating on the water of the well and one bucket with some washed cloths and some clothes waiting to be washed was also lying at the spot. There was no external injury on the person and as per the medical opinion, Manisha died because of drowning. The trial Court accepted the defence that while drawing water to wash cloths, Manisha lost her balance and fell in the well accidentally. The allegation of cruelty 6 months prior to the incident i.e. 27.5.2005 could not be proved and consequently, the trial Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide. The demand of dowry was also discarded, though admittedly, Manisha died within 7 years of her marriage. The learned Judge of the trial Court considered the provisions of Sections 32, 113-A and 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act and acquitted the accused. We do not find any case made out calling for reconsiderations of the reasoning set out by the trial Court in support of the order of acquittal by this Court. 3 2.Hence, leave to appeal is refused. 3.R & P be returned. [SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]