(1) CRI.APP. 1170.2010+2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1170 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1169 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra Through : Police Station Officer, Beed City Tq. District : Beed .. Applicant VERSUS Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe .. Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1169 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant VERSUS Sangeeta Namdeo Likhe .. Respondent Mr. V.D. Godbharle, APP for the Applicant-State Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for the respondent ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Application, the State seeks condonation of delay of 13 days caused in filing of the Appeal and the application seeking leave to Appeal. (2) CRI.APP. 1170.2010+2 2. For the reasons stated in the application, and having regard to the fact that the delay is of marginal nature, the Application is allowed and the delay is condoned by accepting the explanation given by the applicant-State in paragraph no.2 of the Application. 3. So far as the Application seeking leave to Appeal is concerned, it transpires that in Sessions Case no. 88 of 2008 original accused no.1 Namdeo was convicted by the Sessions Court for offence under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code for abetment of suicide committed by his wife, namely, Sharda. Still, however, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondent-Sangeeta who was the original accused no.2. 4. Having heard learned APP and learned Advocate for the respondent, it is amply clear that the only allegations against the respondent (accused no.2 Sangeeta) was that she used to instigate the accused no.1 Namdeo to harass deceased Sharda. It (3) CRI.APP. 1170.2010+2 appears that the respondent-Sangeeta is the first wife of accused no.1 Namdeo whereas deceased Sharda was his second wife. It is pertinent to notice that deceased Sharda was working as Lady Homeguard since about 1-1/2 year before her death. It is more probable, therefore, that she was accustomed to rough and tough life. The evidence on record further indicates that deceased Sharda was residing in another house situated in Ganeshnagar locality in a rented room, whereas the respondent was residing in Yeshwantnagar locality. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that there was no direct evidence to indicate that the respondent used to instigate her husband to harass, trouble and ill-treat the deceased Sharda. The versions of PW3 Maroti, PW5 Meena and PW 8 Mandabai are rather vague and omnibus. They stated that the accused no.1 Namdeo used to ill-treat deceased Sharda and used to harass her at the say of the respondent-Sangeeta. No specific incident of her instigation was pointed out by them. Even assuming that she was in the habit of pouring some mis- information in the ears of the accused no.1 and was (4) CRI.APP. 1170.2010+2 instrumental in the alleged harassment, yet the litmus test to be satisfied under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code is not at all satisfied. There is no intentional aiding, enticement or goading deceased Sharda by the respondent for the alleged commission of her suicide. 5. In this view of the matter, acquittal of the respondent-Sangeeta need not be interferred with and the view taken by the Sessions Judge is quite reasoned and proper. No interference is called for. The Application seeking leave to Appeal is therefore rejected and so also the Appeal is disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp