1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3650 OF 2009 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Coram: P.R. Borkar, J. Date : March 09, 2010 1. Heard Smt. B.R. Khekale, A.P.P. for the applicant-State and Smt.S.S.Jadhav, Advocate for Respondents. 2. This is an application for leave to file appeal against the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No.46 of 2007 on 2.7.2009, thereby acquitting present eight Respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 306, 323, 504, 506 all read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 3. Together, both the learned counsel have taken me through the judgment and the record of the trial court. 2 Prosecution case is that, Natha Magar was father of deceased Varsha. Varsha married Respondent No.1 Dattatraya Dudhane in the year 2004. In the first year after marriage, Varsha was treated well. She was residing with her husband and in laws at village Loni- Haveli. It is alleged that thereafter Varsha was asked by her husband and in laws to bring Rs.40,000/= from her parents for digging a bore-well and on refusal to comply with demand, she was subjected to illtreatment. As a result of non satisfaction,, Varsha was abused, harassed and kept on starvation. She, therefore, returned to her father's house and stayed there for about 1-1/2 months. Thereafter, Natha Magar received a telephone call from his son-in-law Dattatraya Dudhade to send Varsha back for filing an application for her admission in a nursing course. According, Varsha was sent to her in-laws house on 29.6.2006. Thereafter Natha Magar was asked to come down to Loni-Haveli. On 30.6.2006, Natha Magare along with his brother 3 Balasaheb and other relatives, went to Loni-Haveli where a meeting was held on that day. In the meeting, one Natha Mokate and Babu Mokate were present. They all requested in-laws and husband of Varsha, not to ill-treat and harass her and that the demand would be complied with in due course. On 14.7.2006, Natha Magar received a telephone call from Subhash Dudhade informing that Varsha had consumed poison. Therefore, Natha Magar along with his relatives went to Parner Police Station where they were informed that the dead body of Varsha was at Government Hospital. 4. It is not disputed that Varsha died due to suicide. The question is whether there was demand of Rs.40,000/= for digging well in the land and consequential harassment and ill- treatment due to non-satisfaction of the demand. 5. Learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence in details. 4 In paragraph 22 of his judgment, the learned Judge has referred to evidence of three main witnesses, namely, Natha Magar, Natha Mokate and Balbhim Kadam regarding meeting that was held on 30.6.2006. Natha Mokate, an independent witness, has not stated anything about the demand of money by accused in the said meeting. However, Balbhim Kadam and Natha Magar deposed about the demand. Balbhim also said that Varsha was given slaps by Respondent No.4 (accused No.4) Sindhubai. However, neither Natha Magar nor Natha Mokate deposed about Sindhubai having given slaps to Varsha. Moreover, it is stated that Natha Magar did not say about demand of Rs.40,000/- by accused on any other occasion except in the meeting held on 30.6.2006. However, independent witness Natha Mokate did not support the same. It is, therefore, held that the evidence is of doubtful nature. It is also observed by the learned Judge that if we consider the background in which the alleged meeting is held, the evidence does not inspire confidence. 5 Natha Magar also did not say anything about the slaps allegedly given by Sindhubai to Varsha, about which Balbhim deposed. Therefore, considering the back ground of the alleged meeting and the attending circumstances, it was held that the evidence on record was not trustworthy, so far as offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC is concerned. 6. In this case, death has occurred three years after the marriage. There is commission of suicide, but since the offence punishable under Section 498A is not proved, we cannot raise any presumption regarding abetment of suicide by accused persons. Moreover, it is worth nothing that accused Nos. 1 to 5 are said to be residents of village Loni-Haveli where deceased Varsha was residing, whereas accused Nos. 6 and 6 were residing at village Sarola Kasar and accused No.8 is residing at village Akolner. In view of different places of residence, it is doubtful whether there would be cruelty 6 by all accused persons to Varsha. It may be noted that accused No. 3 Thakubai is aged 78 years. 7. In the circumstances, this is not a case fit for grant of leave to file appeal against the order of acquittal. Reasons given by the trial court are proper and based on evidence. 8. Hence, leave refused. Application rejected. pnd/criap3650.09 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)