1 jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3018 OF 2010 [FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 (AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL) The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant [Ori.Complainant] Vs. Dagadu Ananda Patil and Ors. ..Respondents .... Mr.H.J.Dedhia APP for State Mr.Shrikant H. Yadav Adv.for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 .... CORAM : SMT.RANJANA DESAI AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : JULY 7, 2010 P.C.: 1 The State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment and order dated 15.9.2009 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in Sessions Case No. 48 fo2009 acquitting the respondents of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306, 109 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2 2 We have heard the learned APP at some length. Respondent 1 is the husband of deceased Sunita. Respondent 2 is her father in law and respondent 3 is her mother in law. Respondent 4 is stated to be a person with whom accused no.1 had an affair. 3 The deceased was married to the 1st respondent on 19.6.2002. The prosecution case in short is that the respondents subjected the deceased to cruelty and illtreatment from time to time because she could not fulfill their demand of money by bringing the said amount from her parents. According to the prosecution, the illtreatment led the deceased to commit suicide by jumping in the well. The deceased is said to have left her matrimonial house on 22.11.2008. A missing complaint was lodged on 24.11.2008. Dead body of the deceased was found in a well on 25.11.2008. 4 To prove the charge of cruelty the prosecution examined PW 2, the sister in law of the deceased, PW 3 the sister of the deceased, PW 4 the maternal uncle of the deceased and PW 5 mother of the deceased. According to PW 2 six months after the marriage the respondents started illtreating the deceased because they wanted Rs. 50,000/- from her parents for purchase of motorcycle. Evidence on 3 record confirms that the respondents had already purchased a motorcycle. This demand appears to have been made in 2002-2003. According to PW 3, in the year 2005 there was fresh demand of Rs. 50,000/- for purchase of a tempo. There is no evidence on record to establish what preceded the deceased ’s leaving the house. No evidence is adduced to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty in the immediate past before she left her house. The prosecution ought to have established the instances of cruelty of the near past which compelled the deceased to leave the house. In this connection, important evidence is that of PW 5 Dhondubai the mother of the deceased. She has stated that just prior to 23.12.2008 she had been to the house of the deceased. She stayed there for some days. Though she has stated that the appellant beat her in her presence, she has omitted to say this in her police statement. She has stated that the appellant gave her rice which she took home. She has stated that the appellant had seen her off. Therefore, the relations between the appellant and mother of the deceased appear to be cordial which would not have been the case if the deceased was illtreated by the appellant. There is no evidence on record to establish that the appellant had illicit relationship with respondent 4. 4 5 In the circumstances, in our opinion learned trial Judge has rightly given benefit of doubt to the respondents. View taken by learned trial Judge is a reasonably possible view which cannot be disturbed in this appeal against acquittal. Leave refused. Appeal dismissed. [SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.] [ SMT. V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]