1 criap-3321.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3321 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra Applicant versus Vidyadhanr Namdeo Fattepure and ors. Respondents -------- Smt. Y. M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for the applicant Shri S. B. Ghute, Advocate, for Resp.Nos.1 to 5. Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 26th April, 2011. P. C. 01. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 02. This is an application preferred by the State, seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 8.4.2010 rendered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2009, thereby acquitting the respondents (original accused Nos. 1 to 5) of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, read with Section 34, of Indian Penal Code. 2 criap-3321.10 03. Respondent No.1 Vidyadhar is the husband of victim Muktabai who married with each other about four years prior to the occurrence of the incident, whereas, Respondent No. 2 Murlidhar is the brother-in-law, Respondent No. 3 Namdeo is the father-in-law, Respondent No. 4 Vimalbai is the sister-in-law and Respondent No.5 Godavari is the mother-in-law, of the victim Muktabai. Out of the wedlock of the victim with Respondent No.1 Vidyadhar, a female child was born. There are allegations against the respondents-accused in respect of ill-treatment to the deceased Muktabai, since she was unable to do the domestic work, field work, and was also unable to prepare food, properly, and they used to insult and assault her, which resulted into committal of suicide by Muktabai, by consuming poisonous substance. 04. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined inasmuch as eight witnesses, mentioned below. PW-1 Babruwan Pawar Father of the victim Muktabai. PW-2 Vimalbai Pawar Mother of the victim Muktabai PW-3 Pandurang Pawar brother of the victim Muktabai 3 criap-3321.10 PW-4 Dayanand Patil Panch to seizure panchanama, regarding clothes of the victim. PW-5 Abhimannyu Jadhav panch to spot panchanama. PW-6 Tanaji Mungale panch to spot panchanama. PW-7 Mohan Nanaware Police Inspector and Investigating Officer. PW-8 Mehboob Kazi Head Constable,who performed inquest on dead body (Exh.51) and sent the dead body for post mortem. 05. However, P.W. Nos. 4, 5 and 6, who are the panch witnesses to the respective panchanamas as aforesaid, turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution. Apparently, the prosecution has examined close relatives and family members of the victim to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, and there are variances in the testimonies of the said witnesses, on material aspects. Moreover, no independent witness is examined by the prosecution to prove the charges levelled against the accused and no plausible explanation has been given therefor. 06. Besides, the post mortem report dated 28.11.2006 (Exh. D-19) discloses that final opinion on cause of death was 4 criap-3321.10 reserved and viscera was preserved and final opinion was to be given after receipt of report from Chemical Analyzer, about viscera. However, it appears that the said post mortem report has not been proved before the court, by examining the concerned doctor. Further, it also appears that the C.A. report of viscera was not produced before the said doctor and as such, final opinion on cause of death has not been obtained. Moreover, the certificate of Dr. Shendge has not been produced before the Court. Ultimately, there is no sufficient evidence on record to show that the death of the victim was suicidal death. 07. Having the comprehensive view of the matter, it is apparent that the view adopted by the learned trial court, after assessing and analyzing the evidence on record, while acquitting the accused persons, is a possible view and the same also does not appear to be perverse and the reasoning adopted therefor also cannot be faulted with, and hence, no interference therein is warranted, in the appellate jurisdiction, and present application deserves to be rejected. 5 criap-3321.10 08. In the result, present application stands dismissed, and leave to file appeal is refused. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. pnd/criap-3321.10 (Shrihari P. Davare, J.)