1 crapn2032.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2032 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Vishwanath Ganpat Jagtap, Age: 38 years, 2. Ganpat Janku Jagtap, Age: 70 years, 3. Kamalbai Janku Jagtap, Age: 65 years, 4. Balu Ganpat Jagtap, Age: 39 years, All R/o. Talegaon Dighe, Taluka Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for applicant-State. Mr. S.J. Salgare, Advocate holding for Smt. S.S. Jadhav, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2011 2 crapn2032.10 PER COURT : . Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant State and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Since the facts are extensively narrated in the impugned judgment, same are not repeated herein. The alleged incident had taken place on 11-11-2007. It is admitted position that the marriage between the deceased and respondent No.1 had taken place 12 to 14 years prior to the date of incident. Out of wedlock, there are three children to the couple. The respondents were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Upon hearing learned A.P.P. for the applicant State and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and upon perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses and in particular 3 crapn2032.10 evidence of P.W. No.4 Radhabai Chandramore in cross examination, it does appear that prosecution case that there was alleged demand, has been demolished by P.W. No.4 herself. So far as offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution that soon before commission of suicide, there was attempt on the part of respondents to abet said commission of suicide. So far as offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is no any medical evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The prosecution evidence brought on record is insufficient to sustain the conviction of the respondents. 4. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, it does appear that the concerned Court has made serious endeavour to scan the evidence and upon the perusal of the evidence, has reached to the conclusion that the respondents are not guilty of any offence as alleged against them and acquitted 4 crapn2032.10 them. In my opinion, possible view has been taken by the trial Court. No interference is warranted. Hence the application seeking leave to appeal is rejected. 5. Original Record and Proceedings be sent to the concerned Court, forthwith. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn2032.10