1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 635/2010 (Shrikirshna Sadashiv Wadhave .vs. State of Mah. through PSO Wadgaon Road, Dist. Yavatmal) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Mr. B.D. Vora, Advocate for Applicant. Mr. D.P. Thakre, APP for Respondent no.1/State. .......... CORAM : P.D. KODE, J. DATED : MARCH 31, 2011 Heard. The appellant is the husband of one Sunita Shrikrushna Wadhave, who had succumbed to the death on 19.3.2008 due to the burn injuries sustained by her due to committing suicide by burning herself, has preferred the present appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 30.9.2010 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Yavatmal in Session Trial No. 98/2008 acquitting respondents no.2 to 5 from the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The said respondents had faced the trial for commission of such offences in view of themselves being charge sheeted by Wadgaon Road Police Station, Yavatmal as an investigation of crime for such offences registered with said Police Station. 2 Upon the receipt of requisition from Medical Officer VNGMC and Hospital, Yavatmal that said Sunita was admitted to the said hospital on 17.3.2001 at 4.40 hours, Wadgaon Road Police Station had asked Naib Tahsildar of Yavatmal PW1 Pinjarkar for recording her dying declaration and accordingly he had recorded her dying declaration Exh.41 after PW9 Dr. Chhaya Fule had certified that the said Sunita was fit for recording dying declaration. During the said dying declaration, Sunita had stated that respondent no.2 used to blame and ill- treat her and her mental condition was not proper and hence she had burnt herself. She has also narrated that respondent no.2 used to tell about official work and had threatened her to defame on the day of Holi and the said acts had abetted herself committing suicide. Police had visited the spot and drawn spot panchanama. PW11 Vijay Kushikar had registered offence under Section 3 (1) (xi) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against respondent no.2 as per FIR Exh. 84. Dy.S.P. Patil had carried out the investigation of the same. The victim referred to Kasturba Hospital, Sewagram for treatment had died on 19.3.2008 and upon the information of the same, Sewagram Police had carried out the investigation of A.D. No. 0/08 and sent the case papers to the Wadgaon Police station. The investigation effected had revealed that victim has lodged complaint against the respondents no.2 to 5 with the Head Mistress. The same was seized under panchanama Exh.52 and so also note book of deceased vide panchanama Exh.50 and referred the said documents to handwriting expert. After 3 conclusion of the investigation, Police had charge sheeted respondents no.2 to 5. At the trial, the prosecution had examined in all 11 witnesses and relied upon certain documentary evidence. The trial Court after assessment of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had not proved that respondent no.2 to 5 had abetted commission of suicide by Sunita on 17.3.2008 by pouring kerosene on her person. It will not be out of place to state that the prosecution has not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the appellant prayed for admission of the appeal on the count of the judgment delivered by the trial Court being perverse and contrary to the evidence adduced at the trial and particularly the trial Court having not taken into consideration matters stated by the victim in a complaint lodged by her with Head Mistress. The careful perusal of the grounds taken in an appeal memo and considering the same in light of the reasoning recorded in paragraph nos.25 to 28 of the judgment appealed, does not reveal any merits in the same. Such a conclusion is inevitable as the reasoning given in paragraph no.25 reveals that PW3 during her evidence has deposed that mental condition of the deceased was not proper since 3 to 5 months prior to the incident in question and deceased was taking treatment of Dr. Nitin Jaiswal. It reveals that though PW3 had admitted of deceased having lodged complaint on 4.1.2008 of accused/respondent nos.2 to 4 ill-treating 4 her but she further admitted in the cross examination that after about 15 days of meeting of 9.1.2008 deceased has again approached PW 3 and asked for excusing for complaint given against the staff member. The reasoning reveals that even mother of the deceased PW6, during cross examination, the deceased was residing in a mental stress since 8 to 9 months prior to incident. It further reveals that PW11 during cross examination had admitted that investigation has revealed that deceased was suffering from schizophrenia. The reasoning given squarely revealed that all the said aspects were duly taken into the consideration by trial court and particularly the fact of mother of the deceased PW6 and her mother PW8 having deposed of deceased having committed suicide but no particular incident on alleged ill-treatment on part of respondent nos.2 to 5 was established on the record. The trial court had also duly taken into consideration of deceased having even stated to PW1 of her mental condition being not proper. Thus, taking into consideration all the said reasoning given by the trial court, it is difficult to accept the submission canvassed of the judgment being perverse or being not based upon the evidence surfaced at the trial. Similarly, apart from the contents of the complaint given by the deceased with Headmistress being not duly established, even the admission given by Headmistress–PW3 revealing that deceased herself has asked PW3 for excusing her for lodging the complaint, it is difficult to entertain any grievance as tried to be canvassed now without properly the said complaint being duly proved before the trial 5 court. In the premises aforesaid and the prosecuting agency having not preferred any appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal, it is difficult to find even prima facie any merit in the appeal presented. Thus, the appellant has failed to make out any case of matters warranting any consideration or further close examination. Hence, appeal presented sans merit deserves to be and accordingly stands dismissed in limine. JUDGE halwai