1 cr-apln-4124-08 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRI.APPLN. NO. 4124 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Baban Sawala Shinde and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr. V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for the Applicant-State .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J. DATE : AUGUST 27, 2010 P.C.: 1 The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 15.7.2008 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge for Gr. Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 68 of 2007. By the said judgment and order, the respondents i.e. accused came to be acquitted of the offences under Section 498-A, 306 r.w. 34 of IPC. 2 The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: 2 cr-apln-4124-08 Respondent no.1 was married to deceased Tulsi about 14 years prior to the incident. Respondent no.2 is the mother of respondent no.1 and respondent no.3 is the sister of respondent no.1. It is the prosecution case that all the respondents harassed Tulsi in relation to the demand for dowry. In addition thereto, respondent no.1 was having an affair with some other woman due to which, he illtreated and harassed his wife Tulsi which led her to committing suicide on 22.4.2005 by hanging herself. 3 Charge under Sections 498-A and 306 r.w. Section 34 of IPC came to be framed against the respondents-accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is that of total denial and false implication. 4 I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I have also perused the evidence which was produced by the learned APP. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, I am of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. 3 cr-apln-4124-08 5 It is pertinent to note that death of Tulsi occurred on 22.4.2005. Thereafter, statement of the complainant PW 1 Shakuntala the mother of Tulsi came to be recorded. In the said statement, she did not make any grievance against any of the respondents-accused. The FIR was lodged on 7.6.2005 i.e. after almost one and half month after the incident. No reasonable or plausible explanation has been furnished by the prosecution for this delay in lodging the FIR. This inordinate delay in lodging the FIR itself goes to the root of the prosecution case and shakes it very foundation. 6 The complainant deposed in her evidence that initially Tulsi was treated properly, however, after the birth of first child, she was subjected to harassment by the accused on account of demand of dowry. However, PW 1 Shakuntala has admitted that she had not stated in her police statement that after birth of first child of Tulsi, Tulsi was harassed or illtreated by the accused. It is important to note that PW 1 Shakuntala admitted in her cross-examination that her statement was recorded by the police on the day of the incident. It has come through her evidence and evidence of I.O. PW 5 Subhash Ranadive that Shakuntala had not disclosed about any illtreatment to Tulsi at the hands of the accused. Neither has she stated about any illtreatment or 4 cr-apln-4124-08 harassment at the hands of any of the accused to Tulsi nor has she stated that respondent no.1 was having an affair with some other woman due to which, respondent no.1 harassed and illtreated his wife Tulsi. It is further pertinent to note that Shakuntala in her evidence before the Court has also not stated about alleged illicit relationship of the accused no.1 with some other woman. The evidence of PW 2 is similar to that of PW 1 Shakuntala. PW 2 Ratna is the sister of deceased Tulsi and daughter of PW 1 Shakuntala. Ratna has also not stated anything about the illicit relationship of respondent no.1 with some other person. However, PW 3 Janki who is the cousin sister of the complainant has stated that respondent no.1 had developed illicit relationship with another woman due to which, she was harassed by respondent no.1 and also on account of demand of dowry. Though, PW 3 Janki who is the cousin sister of PW 1 Shakuntala has stated so, it is pertinent to note that PW 1 Shakuntala who is mother of deceased Tulsi and PW 2 who is the sister of Tulsi, have not stated so. Moreover, when the police first recorded statement of PW 3 Janki on 3.5.2005, at that time, PW 3 Janki had not stated anything about the demand for any dowry or about illicit relationship of respondent no.1 with some other woman. In such case, it is risky to place reliance on the testimony of this witness. 5 cr-apln-4124-08 7 PW 4 Ramchandra who is neighbour of the complainant, has only involved respondent no.1. He has not attributed any illtreatment or harassment by respondent nos.2 and 3 to Tulsi on any ground whatsoever. As far as respondent no.1 is concerned, PW 4 Ramchandra has stated that Tulsi used to tell him that she was harassed by her husband as he was having an affair with another woman. However, this witness has admitted in his cross examination that he never went to the house of the accused nor after the marriage of Tulsi with the respondent no.1, Tulsi ever came to his house. He did not go to the house of the accused only because Tulsi had performed love marriage with accused no.1. From the evidence of this witness, it appears that there was no occasion or opportunity for Tulsi to meet him and reveal such facts to him. It is also to be noted that his statement before the police was recorded after more than one and half month after the incident. This delay also raises grave suspicion about the veracity of the evidence of this witness. 8 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, I am not inclined to interfere with the same in an appeal against acquittal. Hence, application for leave to appeal is 6 cr-apln-4124-08 rejected. Consequently, appeal is dismissed. [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]