..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3890 OF 2006 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Ranganath Dattatraya Gaikwad and 3 Ors. ..Respondents. ... Mr.K.V. Saste, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.P.P.Runwal, Adv. for the Respondents. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. DATED : 17th June, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 1st July, 2006 passed by the learned Vth Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No.2 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that Kavita is the ..(2).. daughter of the complainant PW-2 Bhagirathibai. Kavita was married to respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.3 & 4 are parents of respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 is the brother of respondent No.1. It is the case of the prosecution that Kavita was ill-treated and harassed by the accused persons as demand of Rs.60,000/- was not met by the parents of Kavita. 3. Heard the learned APP for the applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. In order to show that there was ill-treatment and harassment to Kavita, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW-2 Bhagirathibai and PW-3 Dnyaneshwar. PW-2 Bhagirathibai is the mother and PW-3 Dnyaneshwar is the brother of Kavita. PW-2 Bhagirathibai and PW-3 Dnyaneshwar both have stated that at the time of first Diwali festival after the marriage the accused refused to send Kavita for the Diwali ..(3).. festival under the pretext of agricultural operations. Mere refusal by the accused to send Kavita to her parental home for Diwali festival cannot be taken to be instance of ill-treatment or harassment to Kavita moreso in view of the fact that thereafter Kavita had been to her parental home on a number of occasions. 5. PW-2 Bhagirathibai and PW-3 Dnyaneshwar have stated that one and half months after the first Diwali Kavita and her husband Rangnath had come to their house. At that time Rangnath and Kavita made demand for Rs.60,000/- to purchase Jeep. When Bhagirathibai expressed her inability to meet their demand, Rangnath picked up quarrel with her and left the house taking Kavita along with him. As far as this incident is concerned, it is seen that it was not just respondent No.1 who made a demand, but, it was respondent No.1 and Kavita who had both made the demand of money. It is not the case of the complainant that when she expressed her inability, at that time respondent No.1 caused any ill-treatment or harassment to Kavita. The case of the complainant is that on ..(4).. her expressing inability, the accused picked up quarrel with her and not Kavita. 6. PW-2 Bhagirathibai has stated that six months thereafter the respondent No.1 asked her to take Kavita to her house for delivery. She has stated that Rangnath asked her to take Kavita to her home as it was her first delivery. It is well known that in most communities, at the time of the first delivery the lady is sent to her maternal house for delivery. Such conduct by the accused cannot constitute cruelty or harassment. 7. It is further the case of PW-2 Bhagirathibai that when Kavita came to her home for delivery, she informed her that all the accused beat her and she showed some injuries to Bhagirathibai. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that Bhagirathibai has not stated that Kavita informed her the reason for the beating. It is clear that the beating was not on account of any demand not being met. 8. PW-2 Bhagirathibai has stated that after ..(5).. the Ganapati festival, when Dnyaneshwar dropped Kavita at her matrimonial home at that time the accused abused and beat Kavita in the presence of Dnyaneshwar. No doubt Dnyaneshwar has also stated about this fact, however, he has not stated that the said incident took place on account of any demand not being met. Infact, the evidence on record indicates that the accused was taking all possible care of Kavita during her pregnancy. 9. As far as demand of Rs.60,000/- by the accused persons is concerned, it is seen that the condition of the accused was financially sound. The accused had their own house, agricultural land and grape orchard. On the other hand the complainant Bhagirathibai was working as labourer on daily wages and earnings was Rs.150/- or Rs.200/- a week. The earnings of the husband of the complainant Bhagirathibai was about Rs.6000/- per month. This indicates that the parents of the deceased used to make both ends meet by working hard. There is no evidence to indicate that the parents of Kavita were financially able to meet the demand of Rs.60,000/-. The evidence on record ..(6).. shows that the relations between both the families were cordial till the end. It is an admitted fact that the marriage was settled after making due enquiries on either side about the financial status. The accused was well aware about the financial status of Kavita’s parent and that they would not be able to meet such a demand. On the other hand the accused were financially sound. In view of this fact, it appears unlikely that the demand of Rs.60,000/- would be made by the accused persons. 10. It is true that the body of Kavita was found in the well. However, the material on record does not show that it was a case of suicide. On the other hand it shows that Kavita had gone to fetch water from well and the bucket as well as Kavita fell into the well. This is seen from the fact that when the body of Kavita was fished out from the well, along with the body a water bucket was also taken out from the well. This shows that while fetching water Kavita fell in the well and drowned. In the present case there is no foundation in the evidence to suggest ..(7).. that Kavita committed suicide. The evidence on record does not permit one to raise such an inference. 11. The learned Sessions Judge has taken all these aspects into consideration and thereafter he has acquitted the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 to 4. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)