1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.328 OF 2009 Ravindra Rajaram Dube ..... Applicant. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.Vijay Mane, Advocate for applicant. Mr.S.A. Shaikh, APP for State. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 21st August, 2009. PC : 1. This Revision Application is preferred by the original complainant to challenge the correctness and legality of the judgment and order dated 16th March 2009, by which respondents were acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 Indian Penal Code. Respondents are the husband and parents-in-law of one Vijaylaxmi who committed suicide on 5th October 2004 by hanging herself. The marriage of the deceased and respondent no.1 had taken place in the month of May 2004. The complaint in the instant case was filed 11 months after the incident of suicide. The reason for the delay as stated in the complaint itself is that the applicant was too grief striken to take any immediate action. He filed the complaint only after he recovered from his grief. It is alleged in the complaint that 2 respondents were harassing the deceased for purchase of motor cycle for respondent no.1. It is alleged that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and humiliation for not buying the motor cycle for respondent no. 1. The complaint does not refer to any other reason for harassment or acts of harassment. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses, however mentions other acts of ill-treatment or harassment, which the learned trial Judge has rightly ignored as being omission amounting to contradiction. 2. Admittedly the deceased came to reside with respondents in the month of May 2004. She committed suicide within five months of the marriage. The learned trial Judge has observed that the depositions of the witnesses are contradictory to each other and also suffer by material omissions. In these circumstances, he acquitted the respondents. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that the learned Judge has on appreciation of the evidence led before him taken view which is reasonable and possible. It does not warrant any interference. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application NO.328 of 2009 is dismissed. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.)