1 Criminal Appl.No.326 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.326 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Digambar S/o.Maroti Pawar and another RESPONDENTS Mr.S.D.Kaldate, learned A.P.P. for the applicant/State Mr.P.R.Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 16/06/2011 PER COURT : 1. By this application, the applicant/State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur, who by judgment dated 31/08/2010, in Sessions Case No.48/2008, acquitted the respondents for offence punishable u/s. 498-A r/w. 34 and 302 r/w. 34 of The IPC. 2. In order to support its case that deceased was illtreated by the respondents, prosecution relied upon the testimony of P.W.No.2 father, P.W.No.3 friend of deceased and P.W.No.8 Shankar, brother of 2 Criminal Appl.No.326 of 2011 deceased. Though these witnesses have stated that Rani was illtreated on account of demand of money, but no reliance would be placed on their testimony in the light of the fact that deceased Rani is maintaining a daily diary, which has been exhibited at Exhs.68 to 78 and in the said diary, there was no reference whatsoever to any illtreatment on account of demand, being made by the respondents. It also appears that the allegations of cruelty were against the husband of deceased Rani and subsequent to death of deceased Rani, her husband also committed suicide. 3. In respect of the charge u/s. 302 of the IPC, prosecution examined P.W.No.1 Rajendra, Medical Officer, who had performed the post mortem. P.W.No.1 Rajendra, in no uncertain terms stated that deceased Rani died as a result of hanging. In fact P.W.No.8 Shankar, the first informant, has also admitted that deceased Rani had committed suicide. In the light of the said evidence, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that there was no evidence whatsoever in respect of an offence punishable u/s. 302 of The IPC. 4. We have heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant and Shri.P.R.Katneshwarkar, learned counsel for respondents and we have also perused the record and proceedings. Upon such perusal, according to us, this is not a fit case for granting leave as the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We have not notice any perversity in the 3 Criminal Appl.No.326 of 2011 reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. 5. Resultantly, there being no merit in the present application, the application is dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/JUNE 2011/cri.appl.326-11