(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4524 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra, .. Applicant through Police Sub-Inspector, (Original Sangamner Taluka Police Station. complainant) versus 1. Lahanu Manaju Muke, Age : 25 years. 2. Manaji Sakharam Muke, Age : 66 years. 3. Bhimbai Manaji Muke, Age : 49 years. 4. Deepak Manaji Muke, Age : 31 years. 5. Shila Deepak Muke, Age : 24 years. 6. Savita Chhabu Kale (Deceased). All are agriculturists and R/o. Dolasane, Taluka : Sangamner, .. Respondents District : Ahmednagar. (Original accused) ....................... (2) Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned APP Mr. B.V. Wagh for the applicant / State. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant / State seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 5-7-2010, rendered by the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner (District : Ahmednagar), in Sessions Case No. 13/2009, thereby acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 323, 504, 506, 34 of Indian Penal Code, read with offence punishable under Sections 3 and 4 of Prohibition of Dowry Act. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 5-7-2010 and Record and proceedings with the assistance of the learned APP for the applicant / State. (3) 4. Parties are referred to as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 5. Brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows :- (a) The marriage of accused no.1 Lahanu was performed with victim Rekha, daughter of Vijay Gunjal, on 7-2-2006 at village Kolhewadi (Taluka : Sangamner, District : Ahmednagar), and thereafter she started to reside with accused nos.1 to 5. Accused no.1 is her husband, whereas accused no.2 is her father-in-law and accused no.3 is her mother-in-law, whereas accused no.4 is her brother-in-law and accused no.5 is wife of accused no.4. There are allegations that initially victim Rekha was treated well for about one month after marriage, and thereafter accused started subjecting her to cruelty by abusing, beating putting her to suffer starvation and used to demand Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchase of pick up jeep from March 2006 till 5-11-2008, at matrimonial home of the victim. It is further alleged that due to the said willful acts of the accused persons and in furtherance of their common intention, they made her to commit suicide and abetted to committal of her suicide. Consequently, Rekha committed suicide by setting herself and her son Ashlesh, 11 months old, ablazed by pouring kerosene on 5-11-2008. (4) (b) Accordingly, Sanjay (PW 2) lodged Khabar Exhibit 63 on 5-11-2008 and thereupon, Accidental Death bearing No. 114/2008 was registered on 5-11-2008 at 1.50 p.m. and the spot panchanama as well as inquest panchanama were prepared on the dead bodies of both the victims. Both the victims were sent for post mortem examination. Thereafter, on 6-11-2008, complainant i.e. father of victim Rekha, lodged FIR Exhibit 57 at Sangamner Taluka Police Station, and offence was registered vide Crime No. II-339/2008, punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 323, 504, read with Section 34 of IPC, against the accused persons. 6. The prosecution examined, in all, nine witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, as mentioned below : (1) Vijay (PW 1) - Father of victim / complainant. (2) Sanjay (PW 2) - Who gave Khabar at Exh. 63. (3) Balasaheb (PW 3) - Eye witness and Panch for Spot Panchanama. (4) Prakash (PW 4) - Relative of complainant. (5) (5) Ramesh (PW 5) - Relative of complainant. (6) Savita (PW 6) - Wife of PW 5 and relative of complainant. (7) Dattatraya (PW 7) - Relative of complainant. (8) Suresh (PW 8) - Who recorded Khabar. (9) Shaikh Najar (PW 9) - PSI / Investigating Officer. 7. Admittedly, marriage of the deceased Rekha took place with accused no.1 on 7-2-2006 and her death took place on 5-11-2008. Moreover, it is further admitted that accused persons were not at home at the time of occurrence of incident and more particularly, accused no.1, Lahanu, husband of deceased Rekha, had gone to Gujarat since he was a truck driver. Balasaheb (PW 3) has categorically stated that he had never seen or heard any quarrel between accused Lahanu or other accused and Smt. Rekha and accused never used to demand any money to her. He has also stated that accused Lahanu and Deepak were staying independently from each other and accused no.1 had gone to Gujrat one day prior to the incident and hence, he was not present in village Dolasane. According to Balasaheb (PW 3), accused no.1 and Smt. Rekha were leading happy married life and he never observed anything wrong between them. (6) Balasaheb (PW 3) had never observed that accused and Smt. Rekha had quarreled and their relations were stained. Balasaheb (PW 3) has further stated that Smt. Rekha was not willing to stay in the farm house along with other accused as accused Smt. Savita Kale i.e. her sister-in-law was suffering from AIDS and on the insistence of Smt. Rekha, accused no.1 had started staying in the house at village Dolasane. Hence, learned trial court has observed that it is crystal clear that they were staying in the house at village Dolasane since 3 months prior to the incident separately from other accused. Hence, no other accused were present in the spot house. The villagers and Balasaheb (PW 3) had extinguished fire on the person of Smt. Rekha and had taken her son Ashlesh to Dr. Tambe Hospital. There was no previous complaint regarding any such demand of amount and alleged cruel treatment to the victim by the accused. 8. Accordingly, Sanjay (PW 2), who gave Khabar at Exhibit 63, on 5-11-2008, has stated that when he was going to labour job, the spot house was near to his house and he had heard commotion and saw crowd there and hence, he had gone to the spot house and seen that Smt. Rekha was burning. Hence, he and villagers had poured water on her person and had put clothes and extinguished fire on her person. According to him, boy Ashlesh was also burnt and victim Smt. Rekha was burnt (7) completely and was dead. According to Sanjay (PW 2), victim Smt. Rekha had burnt due to flare of stove etc. and was injured by burning. According to Sanjay (PW 2), the spot house was surrounded by several other houses. He has also stated that the stove burner was lying on the floor in burnt condition and the kerosene can was in melted condition, and stove was blackened and the things, clothes in the room were in burnt condition. 9. Moreover, post mortem report Exhibit 68, column no. 10, showed that Smt. Rekha was averagely built and averagely nourished, and the post mortem report did not support to the allegation of starvation made by accused to the victim. The spot panchanama showed that Smt. Rekha was cooking at the time of incident and some Chappaties were prepared. The column nos. 17 and 18 of post mortem report did not show any ante mortem injuries except ante mortem burn injuries. Moreover, Sanjay (PW 2) and Balasaheb (PW 3) have also admitted that burner of the stove was broken and burner was lying near to it, and corroborates the theory of accidental death. 10. Considering the evidence on record, learned trial court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove that the deaths of both victims Smt. Rekha and boy Ashlesh were homicidal, accidental or suicidal, beyond reasonable doubt. (8) Learned trial court has further observed that the investigation is suffering from different defects. Shaikh Najar (PW 9) Investigating Officer, has also admitted that he has failed to record statements of villagers who were present on the spot at the time of incident. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to prove alleged demand and the circumstances thereof and it is obvious that pick up jeep cannot be purchased for Rs. 1,00,000/-, and consequently, learned trial court has observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, acquitted them therefrom. 11. Having comprehensive view of the matter and after analyzing and appreciating evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, is a possible view and the same does not appear to be perverse, and the reasoning given therefor also cannot be faulted with and hence, no interference therein is called for in appellate jurisdiction, and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 12. In the result, present Criminal Application which is sans merits, stands dismissed, and leave to file appeal is refused. (9) 13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4524