[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1174 OF 2008 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Smt.Janabai @ Jyoti Laxman Nikalje and two ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for Applicnat-State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 DATE : APRIL 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of the Respondents-accused. 2. By judgment and order dated 28.1.2008 passed in Sessions Case No.821 of 2000, the learned 2nd Adhoc Asstt. Sessions Judge for Greater Bombay has acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced by him as well as the impugned judgment and order. [-2-] 4. It is the prosecution case that Jyoti was wife of Respondent No.3. Respondent No.1 is mother in law and Respondent No.2 is sister in law of Jyoti. The prosecution case is that the accused persons used to treat Jyoti with cruelty and hence, Jyoti committed suicide by jumping from the train. 5. There is no evidence on record to show that Jyoti jumped from running train. There is no direct evidence in respect of suicide. In fact, the evidence on record shows that Jyoti was crossing the tracks when she was run over by the train. The circumstantial evidence i.e. the spot panchnama, post-mortem notes and the evidence of the Medical Officer goes to show that it was a case of accident and not suicide. 6. As far as Section 498A of IPC is concerned, there is no any reference of dowry. No witness has stated that any demand of dowry was made by the accused persons. The evidence of witnesses is inconsistent in respect of cruelty. The prosecution has relied upon three letters written by deceased to her cousin and to her brother. [-3-] However, perusal of the letters shows that they fall short of the requirements of the statute. Looking to the above aspects, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondents-accused. On perusal of the evidence, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 7. In this view of the matter, application for leave to appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]