1 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5735 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .Applicant V/s. Jitendra Janardhan Bhosale & ors .Respondents Mr.K.V.Saste, APP, for the Applicant  State None for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 15TH NOVEMBER, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the respondents ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara on conclusion of Sessions Case No.112 of 2009 before him. Victim Megha was married to Jitendra about 7-8 years before the incident. She had two children of the marriage. The victim used to be illtreated by 2 her husband, who was addicted to liquor. It is alleged that respondent No.1 used to demand ornaments of the victim to pay for his vices. On 24th December, 2008 victim left the house along with her children. The respondents did not inform her parents, who reside in the neighbouring village for four days. On 27th December, 2008 the complainant received a telephonic message that the victim was missing with her children. On 27th December, 2008 itself the respondent No.1 gave a report to the police that the victim was missing. On 28th December, 2008 the dead bodies of the victim and two children were found in the vicinity of village Chahur. Dr. Sanjay Hardas, who conducted post mortem examination had stated that the victim might have died 24 hours prior to the post mortem examination. The learned trial Judge disbelieved the evidence about ill treatment given by PW-1 observing that PW-1, victim's father, had not stated that the victim 3 had told him about the ill treatment. As the learned APP points out this is not correct. The learned APP points out that victim had told her father about this ill treatment. However, this in itself cannot be sufficient to conclude that findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge are erroneous. The respondents are being tried for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. If the story of the prosecution that victim was missing for four days before the report was given on 27th December, 2008 is to be accepted, since it is one of the grounds which the learned APP stresses for concluding that the respondents were hiding something, then it has to be held that there was no immediate provocation for the victim to commit suicide, since according to Dr.Hardas, she died prior to 24 hours of the post mortem examination on 29th December, 2008. Therefore, either ways, it cannot be said that 4 finding recorded by the learned Sessions Judge is perverse or improbable. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)