1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3256 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL STAMP NO.690 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Vishwanath s/o Kashinath Raut & others .. RESPONDENTS ----- Shri S.D. Kaldate, APP, for the applicant Shri S.S. Rathi, Advocate for respondents ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 2nd September, 2009. ORAL ORDER (PER DAVARE, J.): 1. Perused. 2. The applicant/ State has preferred the present application seeking leave to file the accompanying appeal against the respondents/ accused challenging the judgment and order 2 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 13.6.2008, thereby acquitting the respondents i.e. accused Nos.1 to 7 therein for the charges under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the alternative, under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The victim Chhaya married with accused No.1 about 2 ½ years back prior to the occurrence of the incident i.e. on 17.9.2006. Accused Nos.4 and 5 are the parents of accused No.1 husband whereas accused No.2 is son of maternal uncle and accused No.3 is maternal uncle of accused No.1. The accused No.6 is brother of accused No.3 and accused No.7 is son of accused No.6. 4. It is alleged that the victim Chhaya was ill-treated by the accused persons and unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/- was made from her for the purchase of autorickshaw. It has also come in the evidence that deceased Chhaya delivered a prematured baby due to assault and ill-treatment by accused No.1, but the said child expired. It is alleged that on 16.9.2006 i.e. soon before death of victim, quarrel took place between deceased Chhaya and accused No.1 on account of filling of grocery and the victim consumed poison on 17.9.2006 and succumbed to death which is 3 the custodial death in the house of accused No.1. 5. We have perused the judgment and order dated 13.6.2008 and also perused the record and proceedings, ocular evidence, medical evidence and heard the submissions made by learned A.P.P. for the applicant as well as learned counsel for respondents. 6. It is seen from the evidence that the accused Nos.1 and 5 i.e. the parents of accused No.1 and accused Nos.2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 were residing separately from the deceased Chhaya and accused No.1 whereas the accused No.1 and deceased Chhaya were residing together. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances, and also considering the evidence on record, we are of the view that there is no prima facie case against accused Nos.2 to 7 whereas apparently there is prima facie case against accused No.1. Hence, leave to appeal stands refused in respect of accused Nos. 2 to 7 whereas leave to appeal granted in respect of accused No. 1 herein. [ SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] fmp/cri3256.08