1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4403 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. V/s Mogan Mari Pillaye & ors. ..Respondents. Mr.S.R.Shinde, APP for applicant. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J DATE : FEBRUARY 11. 2010. P.C.: 1. The applicant seeks leave to file appeal against the Judgment dated12/6/2009 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.465 of 2008; thereby acquitting the Accused for the offence punishable under section 498(A) and 306 r/w. 34 of I.P.Code. It is the case of the prosecution that deceased Rupa married the Accused No.1 on 23.11.2006. It is the case of the prosecution that after her marriage, the deceased Rupa alongwith her husband started residing seperately in rented premises. It is further prosecution case that whenever Rupa used to visit to the house of her maternal uncle, she used to complain regarding ill-treatment by accused. Prosecution case is that on 7th April, 2007, the deceased Rupa committed 2 suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and setting herself ablaze. 2. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the Accused came to be charged for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306, 504 r/w 34 of I.P.Code. On appreciation of evidence on record, the Trial Court acquitted the Accused. Being aggrieved, present Appeal is filed. 3. The learned Counsel for the Applicant submits that though five witnesses were examined by the Trial Court in support of the evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused on erroneous reason. 4. Learned Trial Court has found that though the incident had occurred on 7th April, 2007 and that the mother of deceased Rupa had come to Pune immediately on the next day i.e. on 8/4/2007, First Information Report was lodged on 17th April, 2007. It has been found by the learned Trial Court that delay in filing FIR too late has not been explained. For establishing the case for offence punishable under section 498(A), the prosecution is required to prove that there was ill-treatment to the deceased, on account of non- fulfillment of demand of dowry. The offence is required to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Learned Trial Court upon appreciation of evidence 3 has found that there was no cogent evidence to establish the said charges. 5. Insofar as the offence punishable under section 306 is concerned, it is settled law that prosecution is required to prove some acts on the part of the Accused, which is of such a nature that it would drive the deceased to commit suicide. No such act or omission on the part of the Accused has been brought on record by the prosecution. 6. If it is so, it cannot be said that the view taken by the Trial Court is perverse and impossible so as to warrant interference with the findings of the Trial Court. The Application is therefore rejected. Leave is refused. (B.R.GAVAI,J)