1 cri.appln.305-11 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.305 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Satyam Chandrakant Jadhav & Anr....Respondents Mrs.Pai, APP for the State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & A.M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATED: 15th April, 2011 P.C. Heard Mrs. Pai, the learned A.P.P., for the State. The State of Maharashtra seeks leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Ratnagiri on 15th December, 2010 in Sessions Case No.11 of 2009. The present respondents came to be tried as accused in Sessions Case No.11 of 2009 for the offences punishable under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC and the trial resulted in acquittal. 2. As per the prosecution case deceased Archana, the daughter of P.W.1 and P.W.2 was married to the accused No.1 on 2nd June, 2006 and while in 2 cri.appln.305-11 her matrimonial home at village Lanja in Ratnagiri District she committed suicide on 3rd August, 2008, sometime after 7 p.m. On 4th August, 2008 P.W.1 lodged a complaint (FIR Exhibit 25) alleging that there was a dowry demand in the marriage of Rs.50,000/- but the said amount could not be paid at the time of the marriage ceremony and even thereafter. The deceased was ill-treated and harassed and, therefore, she was driven to commit suicide. 3. The prosecution examined in all three witnesses and apart from P.W. 1, mother and P.W.2 father of the deceased, the Investigating Officer P.W. 3 was examined. The postmortem report at Exhibit 24 indicated that Archana had consumed Organo Chloro insecticide Endosulfan (Thiodan) poison and this was confirmed by C.A. report at Exhibits 25 and 26. The said poison was easily available in the house of the accused as it was used as an incecticide for crops. 4. The trial Court, therefore, proceeded to examine whether there was any evidence of the alleged demand of dowry and ill-treatment/harassment to the deceased. The trial Court noted that as against the F.I.R. Exhibit 25, in the substantive evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 there were contradictions on the material circumstance namely the dowry demand of Rs.50,000/-. It also noted that there was no evidence in support of the prosecution case 3 cri.appln.305-11 that P.W.2 visited Lanja because P.W.1 had received a telephone call from the deceased and that she had complained of harassment and asked her father to visit her matrimonial home. P.W.2 on the other hand admitted in his substantive evidence before the trial Court that early in the morning of 3rd August, 2008 he reached the house of the accused. He stayed there till the evening and found everything in order. He, therefore, went to the Bus Stand at Lanja to start his return journey to Mumbai. He also admitted that accused No.1 reached Lanja in the morning of 3rd August, 2008. It is also not in dispute that accused No.1 has a job and stays at Virar, Mumbai, and accused No.2, his wife and two other sons stay at Lanja. As per the prosecution case itself the deceased had gone to Lanja to stay with her in- laws only in the month of June, 2008 and on account of the illeness of her mother-in-law. It has also come in the prosecution evidence that the deceased was working for a Beauty Parlor at Virar and she was desperate to return to Mumbai. She did not want to stay at Lanja for any further. But she was advised to stay for few more days because of the ill-health of her mother-in-law. It has also come in the evidence that the deceased had along with her brother-in-law escorted her father for his return journey upto the ST Stand at Lanja and the atmosphere in the house on 3rd August, 2008 was found to be normal by P.W.2 himself till the time he left Lanja. 5. We are, therefore, satisfied that the evidence as considered by the 4 cri.appln.305-11 trial Court and the reasoning set out in support of the order of acquittal does not call for any re-considerations at our hands and hence there is no case made out to grant leave to appeal. 6. The application is rejected. (A.M. THIPSAY, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)