1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.790/2010 The State of Maharashtra Applicant V E R S U S Balu Parasram Hegadkar and another. Respondents. Shri S.D. Kaldate, APP for applicant. Shri M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 27 th JULY, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard Mr. S.D. Kaldate, learned APP for the applicant-state as well as Mr. Kolpe learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31st October, 2009, rendered by Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.11/2009, acquitting the respondents/original accused for the offence punishable under section 306 r/w/ 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 31.10.2009 as well as record and proceeding with the assistance of 2 learned counsel for the parties. 4. According to the prosecution, accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly gave abuses and threats to deceased Devidas Hegadkar causing mental and physical torture to him in furtherance of their common intention and thereby abetted the committal suicide by Devidas by hanging himself to Neem tree on 12.12.2007 at about 11.00 am in the land gat No.99, situated within the limits of village Ter Tq. & District Osmanabad and thereby committed offence punishable under section 306 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. To substantiate said charge, prosecution has examined in as much as six witnesses namely : I] PW 1 Kakasaheb Hegadkar complainant i.e. son of victim Devidas. II] PW 2 Jijabai Hegadkar cousin of victim. III] PW 3 Sindhu Hegadkar daughter-in-law of the victim. IV] PW 4 Tukaram Hegadkar cousin of victim. V] PW 5 HC Deepak Bansode registered First Information Report Exh.28. VI] PW 6 ASI Vasant Borade Investigating Officer. 6. On perusal of ocular evidence adduced by the prosecution, it is seen that PW 2 Jijabai stated in her deposition that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been to the house of complainant, and abused the father of the complainant. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 had threatened to PW 2 Jijabai as well as Devidas. On the next day, in the morning Devidas committed suicide by hanging himself by means of rope to lime tree allegedly due to threats given by accused Nos. 1 and 2. Moreover, PW 3 Sindhubai stated in her deposition 3 that accused Nos. 1 and 2 had been to their house and both accused gave threats to Devidas and also abused Jijabai when she tried to intervene on 11.12.2007. On the next day, on 12.12.2007 Devidas committed suicide by hanging himself by means of rope to lime tree. 7. However, both the said witnesses have not specified what abuses were given allegedly by accused nos. 1 and 2 and they have not furnished the details of the said abuses. Moreover, said witnesses no where stated in their respective depositions that what type of threats were allegedly given by the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to deceased Devidas and whether said threats were of such a nature to provoke victim to commit suicide. Moreover, it also appears that alleged abuses were given on 11.12.2007 and victim committed suicide on next day i.e. on 12.12.2007 and therefore suspicion is created whether the said abuses and threats were the cause of committal of suicide by victim Devidas, since there is no proximity in the alleged threats/abuses and committal of suicide. 8. Moreover, after scrutinizing and appreciating evidence, learned trial judge has observed in the impugned judgment that not a single prosecution witness has stated that what sort of abetment or instigation done by both accused to Devidas, in order to provoke him to commit suicide. There is no any intention on the part of both accused to instigate or abet Devidas to commit suicide. Moreover, there was unexplained delay of one day 4 for filing complaint by complainant, which is also fatal to the prosecution. Learned Judge further observed that, the evidence of prosecution witness is not cogent and trust worthy, as well as not corroborated by any independent witness. It is also observed that prosecution has not adduced cogent, consistent and reliable evidence on record to prove that accused nos. 1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention abetted or instigated Devidas and provoked him to commit suicide and consequently, observed that prosecution has failed to bring the case within the ambit of section 306 of Indian Penal Code and accordingly acquitted accused nos. 1 and 2 from the charges levelled against them. 9. Having comprehensive view of the matter, it appears that view adopted by the learned trial judge is a possible view to be taken after analyzing and appreciating evidence on record while acquitting the accused and reasoning given for the same appears to be logical and same cannot be faulted with as well as there does not appear to be any perversity in the view adopted by learned trial judge and hence, no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction and therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 10. In the result, present application being sans merit stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. 11. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned Court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE aaa/790.10 ....