1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3236 OF 2011 Vidhyadhar s/o Madhavrao Thaware ..Applicant Versus Shivaji s/o Ganpatrao Pandhare and ors. ..Respondents Mr Amol S.Gandhi, Advocate for applicant Mrs S.D.Shelke, A.P.P. for respondent No.6 AND CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3563 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra through Police Station, Markhel, Taluka Degloor, Dist.Nanded ..Applicant Versus Shivaji s/o Ganpatrao Pandhare and ors. ..Respondents Mrs S.D.Shelke, A.P.P. for applicant Mr R.R.Katnewshwarkar, Advocate for respondents 1 to 5 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 27th July 2011 PER COURT 1. Since both these applications, seeking leave to file appeal arise against the same judgment of the trial Court, both these applications are being decided by this common order. 2. The applicants herein seek leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli, dated 6.5.2010 in 2 Sessions Case No.35 of 2007 acquitting the respondents of offence punishable under Section 498-A 306, 304-B read with sec.34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution had alleged that the respondents have committed the aforesaid offence on the allegations that on 16.12.2006 deceased Sunita had committed suicide by consumption of poison on account of the ill-treatment meted out to her by respondents, for failure of Sunita to satisfy the illegal demands alleged to have been made by the respondents. 4. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence found that the prosecution had not proved the offence against the respondents beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court examined at length the evidence of P.W.1 Vidyadhar in respect of the alleged demand made by the accused for three tolas of gold, a cow, wrist watch and fan. Vidyadhar had also alleged that the respondents-accused had demanded an amount of Rs. 20,000/- for laying the pipeline in their field and he had paid Rs.10,000/-. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the evidence of P.W.1 Vidyadhar that there was omission in the first information report in respect of the demand for gold, cow, wrist watch and fan. P.W.3 mother of deceased Sunita had also reiterated in her evidence the demand which is stated by P.W.1 Vidyadhar. The trial Court found that on the material aspect of the prosecution case i.e. in respect of demand, there was omission in her 3 previous statement recorded during investigation. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that in the light of the discrepant evidence of the prosecution in respect of ill-treatment on account of demand for dowry was not proved and the accused would be entitled to be given the benefit of doubt. 5. We have heard the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor in support of the application and Mr Gandhi, learned Counsel in support of the application for leave to file appeal by the complainant. We have also heard Mr Katneshwarkar, learned Counsel for the respondents. Upon such perusal of the findings recorded by the trial Court, we find that there is no perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court. We have perused the evidence from the record and proceedings and we find that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. 6. Thus, there being no merit in the applications, both the applications are dismissed. ( A.V. POTDAR, J. ) ( P.V. HARDAS, J. ) (vvr/3236-3563criappln)