1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1986 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Prakash Arjun Mahajan & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ----- Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for the applicant/State Shri K.C. Sant, Advocate for respondents ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 29th September, 2009. ORAL ORDER (PER DAVARE, J.): 1. We have perused the oral, documentary as well as medical evidence. The date of marriage of victim Pallavi and accused No.1 is 20.5.2006 and the date of incident is 13.12.2007. Accordingly, the deceased Pallavi expired within a period of 1 ½ 2 year from the date of marriage. There are allegations of unlawful demand as well as cruelty against the deceased Pallavi at the hands of the accused persons. We have perused the alleged suicidal note at Exh. 60. We have also perused the handwriting expert’s opinion at Exh. 122. We have also perused the post mortem notes and the evidence of P.W. 12 Dr. Rameshchandra Savkare, which discloses that the deceased Pallavi had sustained external injuries which are ante mortem injuries, which were possible due to assault. The post mortem notes disclose the cause of death due to hanging. We have also perused the impugned judgment dated 17.2.2009 and the reasoning adopted therein. We have also perused the statements of accused persons recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The respondent No.1 is husband of deceased Pallavi. Respondent No.2 is brother of respondent No.1. Respondent No.3 is wife of respondent No.2. Respondent No.4 is brother-in-law of deceased Pallavi. Respondent No.5 is wife of respondent No.4. Respondent No.6 is father-in-law of deceased Pallavi and respondent No.7 is mother-in-law of deceased Pallavi. Respondent No.8 is sister-in-law of deceased Pallavi. Respondent No.9 is brother-in-law of deceased Pallavi and respondent No.10 is maternal father-in-law of deceased Pallavi. 3 2. Having the comprehensive of the matter, we are not satisfied with the reasoning adopted by the learned Judge in respect of accused Nos.1, 6 and 7 i.e. the husband of deceased Pallavi and her father-in-law and mother-in-law respectively since there is no proper explanation in respect of death of deceased Pallavi in their respective statements. 3. In the circumstances, we are inclined to admit the appeal against respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7 and consequently, we are not inclined to admit the appeal against the remaining respondents i.e. respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10. 4. In the result, leave granted to file appeal against respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7. Leave against respondent Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9 and 10 stands refused. 5. Appeal admitted against respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7. 6. Action under Section 390 of the Criminal Procedure Code be taken against the respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7. After arrest, the respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7 be released on bail by the trial Court in the sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) each with one solvent surety in the like amount by each of them on condition that 4 the respondent Nos.1, 6 and 7 shall attend the trial Court once in a quarter till the final disposal of the Appeal. 7. Record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court forthwith. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] fmp/cri1986.09