IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH:NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1844/2006 [WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.459/2006] Rashid Khan s/o Gaffar Khan ..vs.. Sheikh Hamid Sheikh Farid & 6 others = ================================ CORAM: S.R. DONGAONKAR, J. DATE:2.6.2008 Heard Mr.Raisuddin Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Firdos Mirza Advocate for respondent no.1 to 6 and Mr. Thakre, A.P.P. for state. This is a peculiar case in which the complaint case was filed by the complainant/Rashid Khan for the offence u/s 306, 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against respondents no.1 to 6. Learned J.M.F.C. committed the case to the court of Sessions considering the fact that the offence u/s 306 of I.P.C. was triable by the court of Sessions. It appears that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pusad while dealing with the same as Sessions Trial no.33/2005 convicted the respondent no.1 to 6 for the offences punishable u/s 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. They were however acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The respondents who were convicted for the offence u/s 323 r/w 34 of I.P.C. did not challenge their conviction. However, the complainant has preferred this application for grant of special leave to prefer appeal against judgment of acquittal of the respondent no.1 to 6 for the offence u/s 306 of the I.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the evidence led by the complainant as well as the other witnesses including the alleged eye witness, supported the complaint. According to him, as the respondents no.1 to 6 were responsible for the suicidal death of his wife, they are liable for the offence u/s 306 of the I.P.C. Therefore, according to him, the application for grant of special leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal of Respondent no.1 to 6, should be allowed and the appeal filed by him be admitted. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 to 6 has opposed the application saying that there is no merit in the application. According to him, the learned trial Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and came to right conclusion. Learned A.P.P. has nothing to say. He has however, brought to my notice that the complainant did not file any specific report in the police station about the incident alleging offence u/s 306, 323, r/w 34 of the I.P.C. against respondent no.1 to 6. On perusal of the evidence which is recorded by the learned trial Judge, particularly of complainant – Rashidkhan and alleged eye witness – P.W. 2 Gausiya, it is difficult to say that the respondent can be said to have committed any offence of abetment to commit suicide by the deceased. It is pertinent to note that it is the case of Gausiya the alleged eye witness that all the accused beat her mother, she also received slap from the accused – respondent no.1 when she intervened in the matter. Her mother allegedly told accused that she would set herself on fire, in case she is defamed. All the accused replied that they would not get any inconvenience or all in case her mother set herself set on fire. It is her case that the accused dis-appeared as soon as her mother poured kerosene on her person. There appears nothing specific to show that the respondents or any of them had specifically committed any act by which it can be said that they have abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. There was sufficient time for her to desist herself from attempting to commit suicide. Apart from this it does appear that the complainant and Gausiya who might to be aged about 16-17 years at the relevant time have not lodged any report to the Police Station. In fact the complainant has stated in cross examination that he filed report with some delay. The reason given by him that he was attending relatives and was not feeling well; by no stretch of imagination can be said to be sufficient for lodging the report belatedly. Even P.W.2 Gausiya has stated that she had kept quiet upto 18th. She has tried to explain saying that since nobody insisted to disclose the incident, she did not disclose the same. She also tried to justify delay in report saying that she was receiving threats from the accused. This is not plausible. In these circumstances of the case as there appears no specific act on the part of the respondents so as to come to the conclusion that all the respondents [or any of them] has abetted the commission of suicide, the view taken by the learned trial Judge cannot be said to be incorrect. At any rate; the said view is possible. Therefore, even if the other view of the matter is possible, the judgment of acquittal cannot be reversed. In these circumstances, special leave can not be granted. Application 1844/2006 & Criminal Appeal No.459/2006 filed by the appellant/ complainant stand dismissed. JUDGE smp.