..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.329 of 2008 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Gitesh @ Sachin Chandrakant Savantsarkar & 3 Ors. ..Respondents. .... Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Applicant-State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. DATED : 21st April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 4th October, 2007 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-I, Pune in Sessions Case No.388 of 2006. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 to 4 of the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State. Perused the judgment and order ..(2).. of the learned Sessions Judge as well as the evidence produced by the learned APP. 3. In the present case, the complaint has been filed by PW-1 Yogesh, who is brother of Yogita @ Anagha (deceased). In his evidence, PW-1 Yogesh has stated that there was demand of dowry of Rs.3 lacs by the accused. However, it is noticed that there is no reference to demand of dowry in the FIR. This omission creates doubt about the credibility of this witness. 4. The next witness is PW-2 Sudhakar Kulkarni who is the father of deceased Yogita @ Anagha. PW-2 Sudhakar has stated that the accused used to tease his daughter on account of not getting good job or handsome salary. However, it is seen that this fact is an improvement as it has come in his cross-examination that he did not inform it to the police. There are also other facts which do not find place in the statement of PW-2 recorded by the police i.e. regarding serious illness of his daughter in December, 2005, about prevention of talking by accused Nos.1 & 2 in between Pragalbha and the deceased, about stopping of taking food by ..(3).. accused No.1 etc. All these facts do not find place in the statement of PW-2 recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C.. PW-2 also disclosed one incident dated 14.5.2006 when all the accused had been to Lonawala by vehicle and the deceased had not allowed them to take her son Pragalbha with them on the ground that there was some programme in his school. The witness has also admitted that he did not inform this fact to the police. Looking to the large number of improvements on material particulars by this witness, his evidence does not seem to be reliable. 5. As far as the evidence of PW-3 Amruta Deshpande is concerned, she has stated that Anagha used to intimate her that her family members wanted to take away her son Pragalbha from her and also intimated that her family members used to ask her to find out a good job with handsome salary. Her evidence on this material aspect is also an omission, especially, on the point that the accused persons wanted her to get good job of handsome salary. This and other omissions have been brought on record in the cross-examination of ..(4).. this witness. 6. Looking to all the above aspects, the learned Sessions Judge could not find it safe to rely on the evidence of these witnesses. Hence he has acquitted the respondents-accused. 7. Looking to the evidence on record, I find that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)