Cri.Appeal No.83 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.83 OF 2011 Ramappa s/o Narayan Akmar ..Appellant (Orig.Complainant) Versus The State of Maharashtra and anr. ..Respondent Mr B.R.Kedar, Advocate holding for Mr S.B.Talekar, Advocate for appellant Mr V.D.Godbharle, A.P.P. for respondent-State CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 7th June 2011 PER COURT 1. This is an appeal against acquittal questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Basmatnagar, dated 3.1.2011, rendered in Sessions Trial No.3 of 2006, acquitting the respondent of offence punishable under Section 306 and alternatively Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The first information report in this regard came to be lodged after more than a month of the incident alleging therein that the deceased had advanced a hand loan of Rs.30,000/- to the accused, which was refused to be repaid back to the accused and the deceased as a result of the Cri.Appeal No.83 of 2011 2 refusal committed suicide. The trial Court upon appreciation of the evidence found that the story of the prosecution in respect of advancement of the hand loan itself had not been established. There was no documentary evidence whatsoever placed by the prosecution on record to indicate that the loan had indeed been advanced to the accused. The trial Court further found that the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide had not been established by the prosecution. There was no evidence whatsoever in respect of the alternative charge of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Mr Kedar, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the deposition of P.W.3 Somnath, who states that he had seen the legs of the deceased being tied by a rope and which had been untied by him. Obviously, the statement during investigation of this witness came to be recorded after a considerable lapse of time, as the first information report in this behalf itself had been lodged after a delay of one month. Moreover, in cross-examination this witness has clearly admitted that the deceased had committed suicide. The trial Court further found that the deceased had recently been married and was found in a depressed condition seating under the bridge and, therefore, some physical disability of the deceased may have led him to commit suicide. Apart from that, we find that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the offence against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. This is an appeal against Cri.Appeal No.83 of 2011 3 acquittal and the view taken by the trial Court is not a perverse view, as the view of the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. 4. In that light of the matter, since we see no merit in the present appeal, the appeal is summarily dismissed confirming the acquittal of the respondent. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J. ) (vvr/83.11criapeal)