..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2917 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Shivaji Anna Dukare and 3 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.Uday P.Warunjikar, Adv. for the Respondents. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. DATED : 25th April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25.5.2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Baramati in S.C.No.32 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-orig. accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 r.w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State and the learned Counsel for the ..(2).. respondents-orig.accused. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 3. The prosecution case is that demand was made by accused No.1 for Rs.50,000/- and as the said demand was not met, deceased Chhaya was ill-treated and harassed on account of which she committed suicide. 4. The complainant is the mother of deceased Chhaya. She has stated that all the accused started giving mental and physical torture to Chhaya. The husband used to assault her. Mother-in-law used to give pinching treatment and father-in-law used to abuse her. The said fact was informed by Chhaya to the complainant on telephone. However, it is seen that the said fact does not find place in complaint Exh.20 which very well goes to show that complainant has exaggerated the story. 5. As far as the demand of Rs.50,000/- is ..(3).. concerned, PW-3 complainant who is mother of deceased Chhaya has stated that she had gone to the house of Chhaya and found that Chhaya was cooking. She was offered tea. Then accused no.1 told her that his adjoining land is put to sell. He intended to purchase the same and asked to give an amount of Rs.50,000/- however, she has shown her inability. This evidence is supported by almost all the witnesses like PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5. However, if one peruses the complaint Exh.20, it is seen that accused No.1 had asked for help and complaint specifically shows that the adjacent land of accused No.1 was put up for sell, he intended to purchase the same, therefore, he had asked the complainant to help him by giving Rs.50,000/- for purchase of the land. It does not meant that the accused had asked for non refundable amount of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant. It has been observed in the case of Vandana w/o. Shridhar Pise V. Shridhar Kisan Vandana w/o. Shridhar Pise V. Shridhar Kisan Vandana w/o. Shridhar Pise V. Shridhar Kisan Pise and others Pise and others Pise and others reported in 2004(2) B Cr C 46, 2004(2) B Cr C 46, 2004(2) B Cr C 46, Bombay High Court. Bombay High Court. Bombay High Court. "Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A - Cruelty - Offence of - Mere demand of Rs. ..(4).. 50,000/- by husband for purpose of opening poultry farm - No ill treatment or harassment to wife at hands of husband for non-fulfillment of demand - Held, since S. 498A was not attracted accused not liable to be convicted for cruelty." 6. None of the witnesses have stated that ill-treatment was relating to demand of Rs.50,000/- not being met. Besides this, there are many contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses, which affects the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration and thereafter acquitted the accused. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)