1 pps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 5082 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra (Through Shivajinagar Police Station) .. Applicant Versus Bahubali Padmanna Mangsule & Anr. ...Respondents Mr. V.B.Kondedeshmukh APP for Applicant. Mr. P.D.Pise for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM:- R.Y.GANOO, J. DATED:- 6th JULY, 2011. P.C. 1. Respondent nos.1 and 2 came to be tried by the learned District Judge-3 & the Asst. Sessions Judge, Sangli (hereafter referred to as the learned Judge) under Section 498A, 306 r/w. 34 of I.P.C. The learned Judge conducted the trial and by judgment dated 25th June, 2010 acquitted the accused of the charges for which they came to be tried. The State of Maharashtra, the prosecuting agency is aggrieved by this Order of acquittal. Hence, criminal appeal has been filed against the order of acquittal. Criminal Application is filed for 2 seeking leave to appeal. I have extensively heard learned Counsel Mr. Kondedeshmukh for the State-applicant. 2. The incident took place on 8th January, 2010 in as much as Sangita, wife of respondent no.1 died on account of burn injuries. According to the prosecution, the respondent nos.1 and 2 treated Sangita with cruelty and induced said Sangita to commit suicide, on account of alleged cruelty by respondent nos.1 and 2. 3. In support of the case of the prosecution that Sangita was treated in cruel manner by respondent nos.1 and 2, in all three witnesses were examined. P.W.4 Padmanna is the father of said Sangita. P.W.5 Sagar is the cousin brother of said Sangita. P.W.3 Mallapa is the person who is resident of Village Allur and he knew P.W.4 Padmanna and the said Sangita. I have, with the assistance of learned Advocate Mr. Kondedeshmukh, appearing on behalf of the State, perused the evidence of these three witnesses. The evidence of these three witnesses as regards the allegations of cruelty are absolutely general. A reading of the testimonies of these three persons nowhere suggests that the respondent nos.1 and 2 treated Sangita with cruelty. On 3 account of evidence as a whole, the learned Judge acquitted the respondent nos.1 and 2 of the charge under Section 498A and 306 IPC. As the prosecution failed to prove that cruelty was practised upon Sangita, the learned Judge declined to accept the allegations of abetment of suicide. 4. After having gone through the impugned judgment, I see no infirmity in the judgment and the view taken by the learned Judge is proper. There is no need to interfere. Hence application is dismissed. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)