MP 1 REVN72_11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION (ST.) NO. 72 OF 2011 Vilas Hanumant Nalavade ... Applicant Versus State of Maharashtra and others ... Respondents Mr. D. V. Sutar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. M. R. Tidke, APP for the State. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, J. WEDNESDAY, JULY 06, 2011 P. C. : The revision application is taken up for hearing by the consent of the parties. 2. By way of present revision, the applicant seeks an exception to the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2009 thereby acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B, 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The deceased Meena was married to accused Satish D. Dhotre i.e. respondent No. 2 on 5th July 2000. On 9th April 2008, the deceased Meena had locked herself in a room. Since there was no response from inside, the door had to be broken. It was found that the deceased Meena had hanged herself to her neck by saree to the hook attached to the roof. On being taken to the hospital, she was declared dead and the A.D. No.18/2008 came to be registered in Palus Police Station. At around 18:15 hours on the same day, a complaint came to be lodged by father of the deceased alleging therein that the accused were MP 2 REVN72_11 ill-treating the deceased on account of non-fulfillment of demands of dowry. Accordingly, the F.I.R. was registered. On investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused for the offences charged with. Being aggrieved thereby, the present revision. 4. Insofar as the offence under Section 498-A is concerned, the learned Trial Court has found that all the witnesses were relatives of the deceased, and apart from the general allegations regarding ill-treatment and demand of dowry, no specific instances were given. 5. Insofar as Section 304-B is concerned, admittedly, the incident has taken place after seven years from the date of marriage. As such, the finding, in that regard, would also require no interference. Insofar as Section 306 is concerned, it has been found that the deceased had given birth to a dead male child, and even according to the witnesses of the prosecution, after that incident, the behaviour of the deceased had become somewhat abnormal. 6. Apart from that, even the perusal of the suicide note would reveal that, there is nothing in the said note which can be said to be an instigation to commit a suicide. As such, the acquittal for the offence under Section 306 also warrants no interference. 7. It is settled principle of law that an order of acquittal can be interfered with only if it is found either improbable or perverse. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Rejected. (B. R. GAVAI, J)