1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2390 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through complainant Venkat Shrirang Ghorpade, R/o.Yenegur, Tq.Omerga, Dist. Osmanabad APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Dinkar Vishwanbhar Survase, Age-40 years, R/o.Murta, Tq.Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad, 2. Vishwambhar Sadashiv Survase, Age-70 years, R/o.as above, 3. Mudrikabai Vishwambhar Survase, Age-65 years, R/o. as above RESPONDENTS Mr.B.V.Wagh, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.M.D.Shinde, learned counsel for respondents. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 06/09/2010 ORAL ORDER : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.) 1. By the present application, the applicant/State has approached this Court for seeking leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.49/2008 vide judgment and order dated 2 06/04/2010, by which the respondents were acquitted from the offence punishable u/s. 498/A, 302, r/w. 34 of The IPC. 2. Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant/State, and learned counsel for respondents. Also perused the impugned judgment in Sessions Case No.49/2008 dated 06/04/2010. 3. It appears that on the complaint of Venkat Ghorpade P.W.No.2 on 24/07/2007, an offence came to be registered vide CR No. 166/2007 against respondent no.1 husband of deceased Nagubai, father in Law Vishwambhar and mother in law Mudrikabai for the offence punishable u/s. 498-A r/w. 34 of The IPC. This complaint is about the incident dated 23/07/2007 wherein it is stated that as there was dispute between deceased Nagubai and the first respondent her husband, complainant was called to pacify the dispute between the first respondent and the deceased. After the complainant pacified the dispute, he went to S.T.Stand to proceed his village. When he was returning to his village, he had received a message that his daughter Nagubai has committed suicide. Thereafter, he came back and lodged the report with the Police. 4. During the investigation, statement of mother of deceased P.W.No.3 and others were recorded. After completing investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Tuljapur and after passing requisite committal order, case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After recording the evidence of prosecution witnesses, Sessions Judge, Osmanabad pleased to acquit the respondents in 3 Sessions Case No.49/2008. With the assistance of learned A.P.P. for State/applicant and learned counsel for respondents, the original accused, we have perused the impugned judgment as well as R & P received from the Trial Court. It is not under dispute that deceased Nagubai is the second wife of first applicant whose marriage was performed about 9 years before the alleged incident. Till the alleged incident, there was no complaint of illtreatment at the hands of respondents. It appears that the first respondent has 3 children, 2 daughters and 1 son from his first wife, who is no more. Out of these 3 children, first daughter is married. It appears that there was dispute between the deceased and the first respondent on the count that the first respondent gave financial aid to his married daughter. Due to this dispute, frequent quarrel took place between the first respondent and deceased, hence complainant, father of the deceased was invited to pacify the situation. On the date of incident, it appears that the complainant had been to the residence of first respondent to pacify the quarrel. In that process, he also slapped the deceased. At the time of alleged incident, first respondent was with the complainant. Even though there are marks of strangulation on the dead body of deceased, and as the first respondent was not present at all on the spot, it is necessary to consider the evidence of defence witnesses examined on behalf of the respondents, which reflects that after the first defence witness, daughter of the first respondent came back from the school, she saw the deceased in hanging condition. Hence, she had reported the incident to the first respondent and the second defence witness was at that time present 4 with the first respondent. Thus on perusal of the reasoning recorded by the learned Lower Court to acquit the applicants u/s. 302 of The IPC, is found to be possible view taken by the learned Lower Court. 5. Perusal of the complaint, on which the offence came to be registered is totally silent on the aspect that there was illtreatment or harassment to the deceased at the hands of respondents on the count of any illegal demand. For the first time, this illegal demand was projected in a substantive evidence before Court given by the mother of deceased P.W.No.3. It is to be noted that marriage of the deceased was performed with first respondent 9 years back and during the said period, there was no complaint of illtreatment at the hands of first respondent or his parents to the deceased on the count of any illegal demand. Therefore, it can not be said that this dispute can be attracted to the offence punishable u/s. 498-A of The IPC. 6. The view taken by the Trial Court while acquitting the respondents for the offence punishable u/s. 498/A of The IPC is appears to be probable. In view of this, we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment passed by the Trial Court. No merits in the application. Accordingly application stands rejected. Leave refused. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEPT. 2010/cri.appl.2390-10