1 crira331.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 331 OF 2009 Haribhau S/o Rajaram Kakde. ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and others ..RESPONDENTS ......... Mr. Manoj Shelke holding for Mr. S.S.Deshmukh, advocate for the applicant. Mr. P.P. More, A.P.P. for respondent no.1. Mr. G.S. Rane holding for Mr. S.S. Rathi, advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4. ........ (CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) DATE : 7 th December, 2010. PER COURT : 1. The original complainant has challenged the judgment of acquittal rendered in Sessions Trial No. 74/2009. 2. The respondent nos.2 to 4 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. There is no dispute about the fact that the marriage between deceased Surekha and the respondent no.2 was performed on 27.02.2008. It is alleged that after three months, the 2 crira331.09 respondents demanded Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for purchasing motor vehicle which the respondent no.2 desires to possess. He used to beat and ill-treat her due to non-fulfillment of the demands. She was stormed in the matrimonial home and was harassed by the respondents. On day of Nagpanchami festival, she was kicked by the respondent no.2 due to failure to pay Rs.50,000/-. She committed suicide by consuming insecticide on 25.11.2008. Her father thereafter lodged F.I.R. which culminated in to the prosecution. 4. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the applicant and learned A.P.P., and after consideration of the impugned judgment, it transpires that the main clinch of the applicant is that the death of Surekha occurred within the period of 7 years of marriage and therefore, presumption ought to have been raised by the Court of Sessions that her death could be due to the demand of dowry. In the present case, the prosecution mainly relied upon the testimony of P.W-Haribhau, PW-Laxman and PW-Vimalbai. The statement of P.W. Dattu Kaware is of no avail. He is father of previous wife of the respondent no.2 and attempted to show that the previous wife also was subjected to cruelty and committed suicide likewise Surekha. His evidence has no bearing on the question of matrimonial cruelty meted out to deceased-Surekha. 3 crira331.09 Though P.W. Laxman stated that on day of Nagpanchami festival when Surekha folded down for Namskar, the respondent no.2 kicked her. It is admitted by PW Laxman, however, that he had done nothing in spite of noticing such incident of assault on Surekha by her in laws. Conduct of PW Laxman was found to be against the natural course of human conduct. The testimony of PW Vimalbai also did not satisfy the test of credibility. For, she categorically stated that she was never interrogated by the police during course of investigation. She did not give any substantial and tangible material to infer that deceased-Surekha was subjected to matrimonial cruelty. No specific incidents of matrimonial cruelty were stated by these witnesses. Their omnibus statements were rejected by the Sessions Judge. The impugned judgment does not show any arbitrary exercise of judicial process while appreciating the evidence of the witnesses. Consequently, the Criminal Revision Application is rejected. (V.R.KINGAONKAR) JUDGE gas/crira331.09