1 criap4967.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4967 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra applicant-complainant versus Bhagwant Bapuji Jagdale and others. respondents-accused. ------- Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, A.P.P. for the applicant. Shri D.B. Shinde, Advocate, holding for Shri R.S. Shinde, Advocate for the respondents. ------ Coram : Shrihari P. Davare, J. Date : 24th March, 2011. P. C. 01. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 02. This is an application preferred by the applicant-State (original complainant) seeking leave to file appeal, challenging the judgment and order dated 31.7.2010 rendered by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Dhule, in Sessions Case No.68 of 2010, thereby acquitting present respondents-original accused Nos. 1 to 3, of the offences 2 criap4967.10 punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. 03. Accused No.1 Bhagwan is the husband of victim Ranjanabai, and accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Bapuji and Gokulbai) are her father-in- law and mother-in-law, respectively. It is alleged that the marriage between the victim Ranjanabai and accused No.1 took place in the year 2004, and two sons, namely, Ashutosh and Anurag, were begotten out of the said wedlock. It is the prosecution case that after lapse of 2-3 years from the marriage, accused persons started ill-treating the victim Ranjanabai, forcing her to bring money from her parents, contending that accused No. 1 gets meager salary which is not sufficient to meet the livelihood of the family. It is also alleged that accused No.1 became permanent in service and constructed a bungalow in J.K. Nagar, Nizampur, by borrowing loan, and therefore, the accused insisted upon the victim Ranjanabai to bring an amount of Rs.1.00 lac from her parents to repay the said loan. However, the parents of the victim were not able to fulfill the said demand, and therefore, ill-treatment continued to Ranjanabai, which resulted in committal of suicide by her, on 2.8.2009 at about 9.30 to 10.10 a.m. 3 criap4967.10 04. To substantiate its case, the prosecution has examined, in all, seven witnesses mentioned below. PW-1 Jibhau Bagul father of the deceased Ranjanabai. PW-2 Ramesh Shevale Maternal uncle of deceased PW-3 Vimalbai Bagul Step mother of deceased. PW-4 Prabhakar Berdse Neighbour of the accused and serving in the same society where accused No.1 was in service. PW-5 Komalsing Pardeshi Police Naik. PW-6 API Madhukar Sonawane Investigation Officer-I PW-7 API Jaising Pardesi Investigating Officer-II 05. The defence of the accused persons is specific that the deceased Ranjanabai was suffering from mental illness since 2004 and even she was given shock treatment, and therefore, she committed suicide in her mental illness. 06. Considering the testimony of PW-1 Jibhau i.e. father of the deceased Ranjanabai, it appears that the accused had demanded money from the victim Ranjanabai, and therefore, initially he gave 4 criap4967.10 Rs.10,000/= in the year 2003, then Rs.10,000/- in the year 2004 and lastly Rs.5000/- in the year 2006 to accused, in presence of PW-2 Ramesh Shivale. PW-1 stated in his deposition that Ranjanabai was treated properly by accused for 2-3 months after the marriage. However, PW-2 Ramesh Shevale deposed that the victim was treated properly for 2-3 years after her marriage. Hence, suspicion is created about the testimonies of both the witnesses. Besides that, other testimony is of PW-3 Vimalbai, the mother of the victim, which appears to be repetition of testimony of PW-1, namely, her husband Jibhau. 07. PW-4 Prabhakar Berdse is the witness, who was residing in the same society where accused were residing, and was serving as clerk in Adarsh Vidya Mandir, where accused No. 1 was working as Professor. PW-4 Prabhakar deposed that while in office on 3.8.2009, he received telephone call from his wife that smoke was oozing from the house of accused No.1, and accordingly, he informed about the same to accused No.1 where after, accused No. 1 went to his house and came to know about the incident, and therefore, testimony of PW-4 cannot be said to be incriminating evidence against the accused persons. 5 criap4967.10 08. Other testimonies of PW-5 Komalsisng Pardeshi, PW-6 Madhukar Sonawane and PW-7 Jaising Pardeshi, are the testimonies of police personnel and those do not take the prosecution case further ahead in a constructive manner to connect the accused with the alleged crime. 09. Pertinently, the defence has examined one Dr. Gautam Shah, the psychiatrist, as Defence witness, who has categorically stated in his deposition that the victim Ranjanabai was brought to his hospital on 3.8.2004, by accused No.1 Bhagwan Jagdale and accused No.1 told him that the victim was behaving abnormally since last three months, and hence, he examined her and found that she was suffering from delusin of infiedelity, lack of child care, self preferential ideas, and her further examination reveled that she was suffering from schizophrenia, and hence, on the same day, she was admitted in his hospital and was discharged on 12.8.2004. Dr. Shah further deposed that thereafter Ranjanabai was being brought to his hospital from time to time and he used to give shock treatment to her and last shock treatment was given on 5.9.2009. He also stated that on 13.5.2008, three shock treatments were given to her. Again, she was brought to him on 3.12.2008 for the same problem, and he produced the medical certificates at Exhibits 49 to 52. Dr. Shah further stated that 6 criap4967.10 such patients have suicidal tendency and homicidal tendency. He stated that accused No. 1 used to bring the victim Ranjanabai to his hospital from 2004 to 2009. 10. During cross examination, Dr. Shah stated that if a person suffering from mental disease is ill-treated, then such person may commit suicide. He also stated that if a person is ill-treated heavily, then he can have such type of mental disease. 11. Sum and substance of the testimony of defence witness Dr. Shah is that the deceased Ranjanabai was suffering from schizophrenia, and therefore, was having suicidal tendency and homicidal tendency, and hence, possibility of her committing suicide in the said mental illness, cannot be ruled out. 12. Moreover, the learned trial court has observed that there must be clear mens-rea to commit the offence and in presence case, no mens-rea can be attributed to the accused in respect of committal of alleged offence. In the circumstances, the view adopted by the trial court, after assessing and analyzing the evidence on record, of acquitting the accused persons, is a possible view and same also does not appear to be perverse, and apparently; there is no flaw in the reasoning recorded therefor, 7 criap4967.10 and hence, no interference therein is warranted, in the appellate jurisdiction, and therefore, the application deserves to be rejected. 13. In the result, present application, which is sans merits, stands rejected. Leave to file appeal is refused. Record and proceedings be sent back to the trial court. pnd/criap4967.10 (Shrihari P. Davare, J.)