1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.34 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011. ( STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PSO, P.S. BRAMHAPURI..VS.. YUVRAJ NIZAM MESHRAM.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Ms. S.S. Jachak, A.P.P. for Applicant/Appellant. CORAM : MRS. V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATE : JUNE 06, 2011. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The State has filed this application for grant of leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.25 of 2010 on 16th October, 2010. The respondent was tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. After having gone through the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had come to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to establish that the death of the deceased Anjali was a suicidal death. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge had further come to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to establish that the respondent had abetted commission of suicide by deceased Anjali. 2 Deceased Anjali Waghmare was working as lecturer in Nevajabai Hitkarini College, Bramhapuri. Her husband Janardhan Waghmare was earlier working at Bramhapuri and was later on transferred as lecturer in District Institute of Education and Training at Chandrapur. The appointment of deceased Anjali in the college at Bramhapuri was on contract basis. It was, therefore, necessary for her to go through NET/SET examination. The position of the respondent Yuvraj, who was also working on contract basis, was similar. It is, in these circumstances, that both of them had occasion to travel together from Bramhapuri to Delhi. It appears that during the course of their stay at Delhi some intimacy had developed between them. It further seems that the respondent continued to visit the house of deceased at Bramhapuri to the great embarrassment of the deceased. It was the case of the prosecution that the deceased did not want the respondent to visit her house. The deceased also did not want the respondent to send any SMS to her. It is the case of the prosecution that the behaviour of the deceased had led the deceased to commit suicide. It was also the case of the appellant/ prosecution that the deceased had purchased some poison and had consumed the same which had led to her death. In brief, it was the case of the prosecution that due to the unwarranted conduct on the part of the respondent the deceased was driven to commit suicide. As such it was contended before the trial Court that the respondent had abetted commission of suicide by the deceased. 3 The evidence to support the allegations was led. However, medical evidence did not support the case of the appellant. The Medical Officer did not support the case that the deceased had consumed any poisonous substance nor there was any report from the Chemical Analyser who had examined the viscera. It is on the basis of this part of the evidence that the learned trial Court had come to a conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that the deceased had died a suicidal death. We have carefully examined the evidence of the medical officer and we do not find any fault in the findings given by the trial Court. Similarly we also do not find any fault in the second finding of the learned trial Court inasmuch as the respondent had been frequently visiting the house of the deceased. We do not find evidence to the effect that the deceased had ever made an attempt to avoid the respondent. Though the learned trial Court had not given any specific finding but it seems that the possibility of both of them being intimate could not be ruled out. It does not appear that it was only one sided attempt on the part of the respondent. For all these reasons, we do not find any substance in the appeal. Hence, the application for grant of leave to file appeal stands rejected. The appeal be registered and be shown dismissed for statistical purposes. JUDGE JUDGE RR..