1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4387 OF 2008. IN CRIMINAL APPEAL ST.NO.876 OF 2008. The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant. Versus Balasaheb @ Bhaurao Raghunath Bhujbal and others ... Respondednts. ... Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P.for the STate. Mr.R.D.Bhalerao, advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 10.09.2009. PER COURT 1. Heard. 2. Leave to appeal is sought by the State. The Respondents have acquitted in Sessions Case No.16/2005. 2 3. I have sufficiently heard learned counsel for the Respondents and learned A.P.P. for the State. 4. Savita, the deceased was married to the Respondent No.1 on 4.5.1999. She died in the matrimonial home on 15.3.2005. Allegedly, she committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance/insecticide (Thiamet). The case of the prosecution was that due to non-fulfillment of the demand made to her father, through deceased Savita, she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty which eventually entailed her suicide. Considering the nature of evidence tendered by the prosecution, it is manifest that ordinarily Savita would not have committed suicide. She was having three children born out of the wedlock. She was young and had natural love for life. She and her husband were residing at Majalgaon, where he was employed as a School Teacher. It was contended that the demand was made so as to obtain his transfer to Ahmednagar District from Beed District. Considering the rival submissions and the reasoning of the impugned judgment, it 3 transpires that there is a prima facie evidence to show that on 15.3.2005, itself the Respondent had rang up father of deceased Savita and had informed him that she was troubling him. The father asked him to give the telephone receiver to Savita. The phone connection was disconnected before her father could give a word of advise to her. It appears that some serious quarrel had taken place between the spouses in the relevant morning. There is no reason to assume that the Respondent No.1 was not at all guilty of anything and it was only due to Savita that the dispute had arisen between herself and the Respondent No. 1. The acquittal of the Respondents does not appear to be on sound basis except for the acquittal of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 because they were not residing with the Respondent No.1 at the material time. 5. In view of the foregoing discussion, leave to appeal is granted only to the extent of the appeal against order of acquittal rendered against the Respondent No.1. The appeal is dismissed as against the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4 Leave partly granted. 6. Admit the appeal to the extent of the Respondent No.1. 7. Call R & P. 8. Print dispensed with. 9. Mr.Bhalerao, learned advocate waives service for the Respondent No.1. 10. Liberty to mention for expeditious hearing after the paper book is prepared. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crapp438708