1 crapn2017.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2017 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, for Jankiram s/o Datta Wagatkar, Age: 55 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Samunderwadi, Tq.Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. ...APPLICANT VERSUS Santosh s/o Shripati Khokle, Age: 32 years, Occ: Labour, R/o. Samunderwadi, Tq.Bhokar, Dist. Nanded. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. V.G. Shelke, APP for applicant. Mr. A.P. Basarkar, Advocate for respondent. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2011 PER COURT : . Heard learned A.P.P. and learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. According to the prosecution story, deceased Savita died a suicidal death. According 2 crapn2017.10 to the prosecution, said incident took place on 16-07-2009. It is not necessary to repeat the facts since the trial Court has extensively extracted the facts in the impugned judgment. 3. Suffice it to say that the evidence of father of the deceased Jankiram and brother of deceased Ramesh is important in this matter. Prosecution witness Ramesh, brother of deceased has specifically stated that at the relevant time, he was doing agricultural work in the field. He has further admitted that Santosh did not personally make any demand either from him or his father. Prosecution witness Ramesh has stated in his evidence that there was no specific demand by Santosh. 4. It reveals from the discussion by the trial Court that one complaint was filed by the deceased against Santosh on 31-10-2007 i.e. two years prior to the date of incident. It has come on record that on 18-11-2007 complaint was filed 3 crapn2017.10 by the deceased against the relatives that they are disturbing her family life. Therefore, in my opinion, the complaints which were filed 1-1/2 years prior to the date of incident, are not very relevant. What is relevant is what has happened soon before the date of incident. The prosecution has not brought anything on record to show that respondent Santosh was instrumental in abetting commission of suicide by the deceased. As stated earlier, the prosecution witness Ramesh himself has stated that there was no such demand from Santosh and that completely demolished the story of the prosecution that due to demand of money and ill-treatment and cruelty given by Santosh, deceased committed suicide. It is also not out of place to mention that the marriage was taken place ten years prior to the date of incident. It is also relevant to mention that date of alleged incident is 16-07-2009 and complaint is filed on 21-07-2009. There is delay of five days in filing the complaint. 4 crapn2017.10 5. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, in my opinion, the trial Court has made endeavour to look into evidence seriously and had taken a possible view on the strength of evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, in my opinion, no case is made out to entertain this application. Hence, the application seeking leave to appeal stands rejected. 6. Registry to send back the Record and Proceedings to the concerned Court, forthwith. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn2017.10