-: 1 :- Sachin HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2333 OF 2009 (For Leave to Appeal.) The State of Maharashtra. .. Applicant. Versus Sujeet Rajaram Patil & Others. ..Respondents. ----- Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh APP for the Applicant – State. -------- CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE & R. Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 20th November 2009. P. C. : 1. We have heard Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh learned APP, in support of this application for seeking leave to appeal under section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No. 49 of 2008 by the learned 2nd Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Riagad at Alibag on 27th January 2009. 2. In the said case four accused persons were put on trial and accused no.1 is the husband of the deceased – Leena, accused no.2 is his brother and accused nos. 3 & 4 are his parents. All of them were charged for the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 306 and -: 2 :- 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It was the prosecution case that Leena was married to accused no.1 on 28/5/2003 and she committed suicide in her matrimonial home on 27/.05/2007, i.e., within 7 years of her marriage. The prosecution examined about 10 witnesses and relied upon mainly the evidence of PW-1, PW-3 to PW-6, who were either close relations or family friends of Leena. The learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence placed on record by the prosecution has acquitted accused nos. 2 to 4 - the present respondents of all the charges and has convicted the accused no.1 for the offences punishable under section 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default thereof to undergo R.I. for one more year. 3. The State of Maharashtra is aggrieved by the acquittal of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. 4. There is no dispute that after her marriage with the accused no. 1 on 28/5/2003, Leena was staying in the joint family home for about three years and she begot a daughter. She was a practicing lawyer with a post graduate degree in law. As per the prosecution case, with the financial assistance of her father, Leena and accused no.1 -: 3 :- purchased a separate flat and shifted therein on 26/7/2006 and Leena was found dead exactly after one year, i.e., on 27/7/2007. Thus for about one year prior to the date of incident, Leena was not staying in the company of her in-laws. We have also noted that her joint family home was Flat No. 201, Ganesh Chhaya Building, Panvel whereas the new home which she had set up with her husband and daughter was Flat No. 204, Anupam Co-operative Housing Society, Old Thane Naka, Panvel. It is not the prosecution case that these two locations were in the neighbourhood of each other and therefore the in-laws of Leena and more particularly the accused nos. 3 & 4 were visiting Leena’s home everyday. Some of Leena’s friends were also examined in support of the prosecution case that she was complaining of harassment at home. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence in its right perspective and recorded a finding that the prosecution case against accused nos. 2 to 4 was not proved beyond doubt on any count, and therefore has passed the order of acquittal. We do not find any error in the reasoning set out by the trial Court and therefore the order of acquittal does not call for re-consideration at our hands. -: 4 :- 5. Hence Leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected. 6. We are also informed by the learned APP that the accused no.1 has challenged the order of conviction and sentence. However, the State has not filed an appeal against the acquittal of accused no.1 under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. (R. Y. Ganoo, J.) (B. H. Marlapalle, J.)