IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2914 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Prakash Laxman Girigosavi & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.P.A.Pol, A.P.P for the applicant. Mr.Dilip Bodake for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 3rd April 2009. : 3rd April 2009. : 3rd April 2009. P.C.: . Heard the learned A.P.P in support of the prayer for grant of leave. By the impugned order the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offences alleged under section 306, 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P I have perused the judgment as well as the notes of evidence. The learned trial Judge has summarised the prosecution case in paragraph No.2 of the judgment. The relevant part of paragraph No.2 reads thus: "It is case of the prosecution that on 7.12.2006 complainant Ramchandra Jaysing Girigosavi lodged a report to the police station that marriage of (2) deceased Sunita was solemnized on 25.08.2004 with accused No.3, Mahesh son of Prakash Laxman Girigosavi, resident of Andori, Tal.Khandala, as per the Hindu reliegion and rites. Said marriage was performed by the complainant Ramchandra Jaysing Girigosavi, at Shivam hall Mangal Karyalaya at Satara. In the marriage, it was agreed to offer half tola gold to the bridegroom. Deceased Sunita was educated upto 8th standard. After marriage, inlaws i.e accused Nos.1 and 2, and husband started illtreating and harassing deceased Sunita to give half tola gold as per settlement in the marriage. Said fact was informed by deceased Sunita to complainant on telephone. According to the complainant, in laws were also demanding money on telephone. According to the complainant, in the mean time, his son Dattatraya had sustained burn injuries while he was working in Universal Chemical Company, at Chiplun. According to the complainant, as his son was burnt, he had incurred expenses for his medical treatment. Accused were insisting to offer half tola gold or its amount to them and on that count, they were causing illtreatment to deceased Sunita frequently. At the time of (3) Diwali, complainant had brought Sunita at that time also accused had made telephone and told to send Sunita and half tola gold as settled in the marriage. On 5.12.2006, there was telephone received on S.T.D booth of Shamrao Phadatre from Andori, Tal.Khandala, that deceased Sunita was expired due to fall into the well. Therefore, complainant and all family members went to Andori, and saw the dead body of deceased Sunita. At that time, police were also gathered on the spot. Dead body was sent for post mortem to Primary Health Centre, Lonand. According to the complainant, deceased Sunita had committed suicide by jumping into the well on 5.12.2006 at about 9.00 a.m due to illtreatment and harassment caused by accused persons for illegal demand of half tola gold or its price. Police Station officer on duty had registered the offence vide C.R.No.136/2006 for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code." 2. The prosecution examined as many as seven witnesses. The first material witness is P.W.No.3 Dattatraya Ramchandra Girigosavi who is the real brother (4) of the deceased. The second material witness examined by the prosecution is Madhavi Keshav Gosavi-Girigosavi who is the real sister of the deceased. The third material witness is Ranjana Ramchandra Giri-Gosavi, the mother of the deceased. The marriage of the deceased was solemnised on 25th August 1994. The said witnesses have deposed about demand of one and half tola of gold. The witnesses have vaguely stated that on account of non-compliance with the said demand, the accused were illtreating the deceased. None of the witnesses have ventured to state as to what was the nature of the illtreatment. The witnesses have stated that the illtreatment was disclosed by the deceased in Diwali festival after the marriage which must be Diwali of the year 2004. The incident occured on 05th December 2006. 3. The allegations of illtreatment are very vague and the same do not inspire confidence. Even if evidence of the three material prosecution witnesses is taken as it is, it is obvious that the finding of the learned trial Judge that the guilt of the accused is not established is certainly a possible view. No case is made out for grant of leave. Application is rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)