..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.358 OF 2008 1. Dr.Sanjivani Ramkrishna Kale, & 2. Shri.Ramkrishna Madhukar Kale. ..Applicants. Versus The State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.Pratap Patil, Advocate for the Applicants. Mr.H.J.Dedia, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th September, 2008. DATED : 17th September, 2008. DATED : 17th September, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the Applicants and the learned APP for the State. 2. The applicants are seeking discharge in C.R.No.152 of 2007 of Karad City Police Station. The said case is under Sections 498-A, 304B. It pertains to Sessions Case No.18 of 2008 and it is pending before the learned Sessions Court, Karad. 3. Applicant No.2 is the brother of husband of the deceased. Applicant No.1 is the wife of applicant No.2. Rajeshri @ Subhada was married to the brother of applicant No.2. She died on account of burn ..(2).. injuries. The FIR has been lodged by the mother of the deceased. The learned Advocate for the applicants has submitted that after the deceased sustained burn injuries, two dying declarations came to be recorded in the hospital. In the said dying declarations, she has not implicated the applicants. It is also pointed out that an independent witness Sanjay Tole who is the neighbour of the deceased and her husband has not implicated the present applicants. 4. However, as stated earlier the mother of the deceased has lodged her FIR. In the FIR she has specifically named the present applicants and she has stated that along with other accused persons the applicants were asking her daughter to get Rs.50,000/- from her house and as the demand was not met she was physically and mentally harassed and treated with cruelty by the accused persons including the applicants. No doubt the independent witness does not implicate the applicants, but, as far as the matrimonial disputes are concerned, a person does not know the exact happenings in the house of his neighbour. In the FIR, the applicants have been named. The complainant has stated that the ..(3).. applicants along with others treated her daughter with cruelty on account of demand for money being not met. 5. The learned Advocate for the applicants has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Appasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra Appasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra Appasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2007 AIR (SCW) 456 2007 AIR (SCW) 456 2007 AIR (SCW) 456. However, it is seen that the said decision has been rendered after the evidence has been led and the matter was being considered at the appellate stage. It is well settled that considerations for acquittal and discharge are entirely different. Hence, the said decision would not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case, there is sufficient material to proceed. No case is made out for discharge. Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)