(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4059 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Nagnath Bhagwan Kilche, Age : 52 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Massakhandeshwari, .. Applicant Taluka : Kallam, (Original District : Osmanabad. complainant) versus 1. Shivaji Mahadeo Chandane, Age : 66 years, R/o. Khamaswadi, Taluka : Kallam, District : Osmanabad. 2. Sau. Parwati Shivaji Chandane, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. as above. 3. Ishwar Shivaji Chandane, Age : 23 years, Occupation & R/o. as above. 4. Sidheshwar Shivaji Chandane, Age : 30 years, Occupation & R/o. as above. (2) 5. Parmeshwar Shivaji Chandane, Age : 28 years, Occupation & R/o. as above. 6. Rambhau Baburao Lakade, Age : 45 years, .. Respondents Occupation & R/o. as above. (Original accused) ....................... Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant. Mr. N.B. Jadhav, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 6 (Absent). ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 7TH JUNE 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, learned APP, for the applicant / State. 2. None for respondent nos.1 to 6. 3. This is an application preferred by the applicant / State, seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and (3) order dated 16th June 2010, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 92/2009, thereby acquitting respondent nos.1 to 6 herein (original accused nos.1 to 6), for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 4. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 16th June 2010, as well as perused the record and proceedings, with the assistance of learned APP for the applicant. 5. Respondent nos.1 to 6 (original accused) had faced trial for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The victim Rohini, i.e. daughter of complainant Nagnath (PW 1), was married with accused no.3 Ishwar on 20-5-2008. Respondent no.1 Shivaji is father-in-law of victim Rohini, whereas respondent no.2 Parwati is her mother-in-law, and respondent no.4 Sidheshwar and respondent no.5 Parmeshwar are her brothers-in-law, whereas respondent no.6 Rambhau is father-in-law of respondent no.5 Parmeshwar. 6. After marriage, victim Rohini went to her matrimonial home for cohabitation. There are allegations against the respondents in respect of illtreatment and harassment to (4) which victim Rohini was subjected, due to non-fulfillment of unlawful demand of Rs. 50,000/- for construction of house and for purchase of tractor. There are allegations also against the respondents, that they used to illtreat victim Rohini since she was not ready to give divorce to respondent no.3 Ishwar. There is allegation that victim Rohini committed suicide on 18-12-2008 i.e. within a span of 7 months from the date of marriage, by strangulating herself in the land of her husband, allegedly which is culmination of mental and physical torture to which she was subjected by the respondents herein. 7. The prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses to substantiate charges levelled against the respondents / accused, i.e. Nagnath (PW 1) - complainant and father of victim; Mohan (PW 2) who is Panch witness; Indubai (PW 3), mother of victim; Satwashila (PW 4), neighbour of Nagnath; Shahaji Bansode, Head Constable, and API Dadahari Choure, Investigating Officer. 8. After considering oral and documentary evidence as well as rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties, learned Judge of the trial court while acquitting the respondents (original accused), has observed that Nagnath (PW 1) has admitted in his testimony, that he had taken victim Rohini (5) to the hospital of Dr. Mastud at Barshi for the treatment. Dr. Mastud is a Psychiatrist and Rohini was shown to him as she had lost her mental balance. It is also observed by the learned Judge of the trial court, that Nagnath (PW 1) admitted that Dr. Mastud had given tablets to Rohini for the period of one month. Accordingly, learned Judge of the trial court has further observed that it is clear that Rohini was a patient of mental disorder and she was under medical treatment of Dr. Mastud. It is further observed that under such circumstances, possibility cannot be ruled out that Rohini might have lost her mental balance and committed suicide. Considering the totality of evidence and very admission of Nagnath (PW 1), the said observations made by the learned Judge of the trial court cannot be faulted with. 9. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, learned APP, has invited my attention to the fact, that Nagnath (PW 1) has stated in his deposition that victim Rohini lost her mental balance after her marriage. She submits that it is culmination of mental and physical torture at the hands of the respondents herein after marriage and, therefore, there is prima facie evidence against the respondents. She, therefore, submits that the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judge of the trial court in favour of the respondents herein deserves to be quashed and set aside. (6) 10. However, after perusal of the testimony of Nagnath (PW 1), although he has stated in his deposition that he denies that victim Rohini was hot tempered, however, he has admitted that victim Rohini had lost her mental balance after her marriage. However, it is material to note that the said witness has not stated in his deposition that Rohini had lost her mental balance after her marriage due to illtreatment at the hands of the respondents herein. Hence, inference as canvassed by the learned APP cannot be drawn. 11. Moreover, although the incident had taken place on 18-12-2008 at about 4 - 5 p.m., the FIR came to be lodged on 19-12-2008 at about 1.30 p.m., and the said delay of about 20 hours in lodging the FIR has not been convincingly explained by the prosecution. 12. In the circumstances, it is apparent that the view adopted by the learned Judge of the trial court, while acquitting the respondents herein, after assessing the evidence on record, is a possible view and reasons adopted therefor also do not appear to be perverse and the same cannot be faulted with. Hence, no interference is called for in the appellate jurisdiction and present application deserves to be rejected. (7) 13. In the result, present Criminal Application is dismissed. Consequently, leave to file appeal is refused. 14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4059