1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.167/2006. Meerabai Sopan Khandale - APPLICANT VERSUS 1) Balasaheb s/o Baburao Dhumal and 2 Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.DG Nagode, Advocate for Applicant; Mr.RA Tambe, Advocate for Resp.Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs.BR Khekale, APP for State. ----- CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th August, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Rule, Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, heard finally. 2) The acquittal dated 19.1.2006 recorded in Sessions Case No.6/2005 for an offence under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC, is questioned by petitioner – Meerabai. 3) The Counsel submits the suspicious behaviour of the accused Balasaheb, the husband, and Pushpa, mother-in-law of the deceased in not attending the funeral of the deceased and not immediately communicating about the deceased committing suicide, are the basic cause to infer 2 about their involvement in the matter of cruelty and abetting the deceased to commit suicide. 4) It was contended that death of Manisha has taken place within seven years of her marriage, as she married to accused no.1 – Balasaheb on 10.4.2003. She was behaved properly for two months and thereafter the accused started demanding money to purchase a jeep. 5) The assessment of evidence carried by the learned Judge indicate the allegation of cruelty flashed against the accused/respondents are of general nature, without any specific events or account. It is pertinent that in close proximity of the death of said Manisha, there was no such eventuality making her to jump in the well to commit suicide. The post mortem notes indicate there were no injuries of any nature on the person of the deceased. Her death was due to asphyxia due to drowning (Exhibit-25 post mortem notes). The record illustrate that Manisha had desired to take further education and she wanted to become something more by taking higher education and she was insisting for the same. The witness has also accepted that the parents did not consider this aspect and forcibly arranged marriage of said Manisha with the accused. She was indeed not ready to marry the accused no.1 – Balasaheb. The mother also accepted, due to death of father, Manisha was depressed, she felt 3 sorry, as she was much beloved daughter of her father. 6) Taking these aspects into consideration and probably it was the relatives, who advised the complainant – Smt. Meerabai, to initiate action, she has lodged prosecution against the accused/respondents. The observations of the learned Judge taking as a whole do not indicate a wrong approach. The evidence is properly assessed. Criminal Revision does not warrant any interference in the acquittal, same is rejected. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/crrv167.06