1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3710 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .Applicant V/s. Dattatraya Bhivsen Mate & ors .Respondents Smt.S.V.Sonawane, APP, for the Applicant - State Mr.Nitin Jamdar with Mr.Vijay Killedar, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the respondents by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504 & 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned APP first submitted that the learned 2 trial Judge had not at all referred to the provisions of Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Since the accused were not charged for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, there was no need to discuss Section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of PW-1 Gulab Barate and PW-2 Yogesh categorically shows that the victim had been subjected to ill tratment on account of unlawful demand as also because she had given birth to a daughter. Therefore, the learned Judge should have convicted the respondents. 3. I have gone through the evidence which was made available for my perusal by the learned APP, as also the Judgment. The victim was married to respondent No.1, Dattatraya about eight years prior to 4th September, 2008 when she hanged herself. The story given by the witnesses was that after marriage the victim had 3 gone to reside with the respondents at ancestral house at Nimgaon Sava. The learned trial Judge found from the admissions of Gulab and Yogesh that in fact, respondent No.1, Dattatraya was serving at Baroda and therefore, there was no question of victim's joining him at the ancestral home Nimgaon Sava. She was staying at Baroda till 2006. The learned Judge cannot be faulted also for a finding that respondent No.4, Sunanda could not have been residing at Nimgaon Sava, since her husband was also at Baroda and she had school going children. Respondent No.2, Bharat, brother-in-law of the victim had also got married in 2004 and was residing at Baroda according to admission of PW-2 Yogesh. Therefore, there was no question of even his residing at village Nimgaon Sava. The learned APP could not point out as to how these conclusions drawn by the learned Judge are incorrect. If the conclusions are accepted, it would appear that the victim's family have been 4 trying to harass & falsely implicate the persons from the family of victim's husband, who have not been staying at village Nimgaon Sava at all. 4. As to the events, prior to the unfortunate suicide by the victim on 4th September, 2008 also, the evidence is not consistent as pointed by the learned trial Judge. While Yogesh had stated that the victim was staying with them for about three and half months only from 6th May, 2008, Gulab did not know anything about the victim's stay at his house for about three and half months till the victim went back to her matrimonial home on 17th August, 2008. Now, if the victim had been staying with her parents, the evidence of both her father and brother should have been to the effect that the victim was staying with her father for about three and half months. The learned Judge also found that while Yogesh stated to have been visited victim on 1st 5 September, 2008 i.e. about three days before the suicide, his father's evidence does not show that Yogesh had visited on 1st September, 2008. Ordinarily, when the daughter was being subjected to ill treatment and even stayed with parents about three and half months and when the brother goes to victim and learns about the ill treatment, he would certainly re-count this to his father. Therefore, the learned trial Judge refused to believe the evidence of both the witnesses about the ill treatment and abetment by the respondents to the victim to commit suicide. It cannot be said that view taken by the learned Judge was perverse or improbable. It seems to be only the view which could have been taken in the light of evidence which was unfolded before him. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)