IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2801 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2801 OF 2004 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2801 OF 2004 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.234 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders ------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the applicant Mrs.M.H.Mhatre APP for the State. Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 19th January, 2006. PC 1. This is an application for condonation of delay. The delay is of 105 days in filing of the revision. The ground given for condonation of delay is that the applicant is a poor agriculturist and was not aware about the legal proceedings. In any case, in the interest of justice, for the reasons which are mentioned in the application and which are accepted, delay is condoned. Application stands disposed of. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.234 OF 2004 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.234 OF 2004 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.234 OF 2004 ------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Court’s or Judge’s orders Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders ------------------------------------------------------ Mr.Milind Deshmukh for the applicant Mrs.M.H.Mhatre APP for the State. Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 19th January, 2006. PC 1. This is a revision filed by the original complainant against a judgment and order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, acquitting the accused nos.1, 3, & 4 of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused no.2 has been acquitted of the offences under Section 498-A, 304-B and 306 r/w section 109 of IPC. On perusal of the impugned judgment and order, it is seen that the same has been passed for cogent and acceptable reasons. The reason as to why Rani has said to have committed suicide is that her husband was used to visit the house of the neighbouring girl and used to jest with her. This is said to have been disclosed by Rani on 11.8.2002 when she visited her parental house. Rani committed suicide on 2.10.2002. In my view this act on the part of the accused by itself cannot amount to abetment for suicide and in any case not an act which is proximate to the suicide. No case has been made out for retrial and hence revision is rejected. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)