(1) CRI.APP. 4396.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4396 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant VERSUS Satish Bhima Mehetre and others .. Respondents Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the Applicant-State Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 3 ... CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 30TH AUGUST, 2010 ORAL ORDER:- 1. By this Application, the State seeks leave to appeal against judgment of acquittal rendered in Sessions Case no. 56 of 2007 by learned Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangamner. 2. The respondents were tried in Sessions Case no. 56 of 2007 for offences punishable under section 306, 498-A, 323 and 504 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (2) CRI.APP. 4396.2009 3. Briefly stated the prosecution case was that deceased Smt. Jyoti was married to the respondent no.1 Satish in or about January, 2007 prior to about 4 years of the alleged incident in which she met with her death. She was well treated by the applicants in their matrimonial house for about one year. The husband and his relatives (respondents) subsequently started demanding amount of Rs.20,000/- from maternal relatives of deceased Smt. Jyoti. They were demanding the amount in order to repay their outstanding loan. She could not fetch such amount from her mother and other maternal relatives. The respondents used to taunt her, beat her and harassed her. She had begotten a female child. The child was about 4 months old at the time of relevant incident. 4. According to the prosecution, deceased Smt. Jyoti committed suicide by jumping in a well situated in the backyard of the house of the respondents due to unbearable cruel treatment meted out to her. The said incident occurred on 24th July, 2007. Her mother lodged FIR in the same noon. The Police (3) CRI.APP. 4396.2009 carried out certain investigation into the accusations made in the FIR and charge-sheeted the respondents for the offence as stated hereinabove. 5. The respondents denied truth into the accusations. Their defence was one of total denial. 6. The prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses in support of its case and also placed on record certain documentary evidence. The learned Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge of matrimonial cruelty was not proved beyond reasonable realm of doubt. He further held that the prosecution failed to establish that deceased Smt. Jyoti died suicidal death in the relevant morning. Hence, the respondents were acquitted. 7. Heard learned APP and learned counsel for the respondents. I have gone through the record and proceedings with the assistance of learned APP. (4) CRI.APP. 4396.2009 8. P.W.1 Smt. Sushila is a widow. Her testimony purports to show that after one year of marriage deceased Smt. Jyoti was subjected to harassment. She narrated that amount of Rs.20,000/- was being demanded from Smt. Jyoti. She further narrated that about one month before the date of incident deceased Smt. Jyoti had disclosed about the ill-treatment on account of non-fulfillment of the demand. It is pertinent to notice that she and her son alongwith other relatives had gone to house of the respondent in the relevant morning. She admits, un-equivocally, that after about 1-1/2 months of the alleged incident, she had gone to the house of the respondents in order to collect the articles and marriage presentation given to Smt. Jyoti at the time of marriage. She admits that the respondents handed over those articles to her. She admits execution of the acknowledgment receipt (Exh.36). It appears from the recitals that she expressed that she had lodged FIR due to mis-understanding and she had left no grievance against the respondents. Her cross- examination further shows that her relatives were (5) CRI.APP. 4396.2009 present at the time of funeral of deceased Smt. Jyoti. She admits that Police personnel were also present when funeral was performed on the dead body of Smt. Jyoti. She categorically admits that after the funeral she and other relatives returned to their native place i.e. Bholewadi and deliberated about the death of Smt. Jyoti. They decided, in such a common meeting, that the respondents should suffer due to loss of the life of Smt. Jyoti. Needless to say the FIR was lodged as a result of such deliberation and decision taken in the common meeting of P.W.1 Sushila and her relatives. 9. There was no prior complaint lodged by deceased Jyoti with the Police nor P.W.1 Sushila had lodged any such complaint with the Police. It appears that P.W.2 Anil is a neighbour and gave the report (Exh.38) after the incident of drowning of Smt. Jyoti in the well. He admits that he never heard any quarrel between deceased Smt. Jyoti and the respondents. His version purports to show that he and the respondent no.1 do not know art of swimming (6) CRI.APP. 4396.2009 and therefore, could not save Smt. Jyoti while she was drowning in the water of the well. His version reveals that except a part of western side, there is no parapet wall around the well. It is worthy to be noticed that the minor daughter of deceased Smt. Jyoti was rescued by P.W. Anil and his brother in the said morning. Report (Exh.38) shows that they could not save deceased Smt. Jyoti because she had drowned immediately and had gone to the bed of the well and they could not take risk of going in the deep water as they did not know art of swimming. 10. On perusal of the versions of P.W.3 Sachin, P.W.4 Bhanudas and other witnesses, it is amply clear that identical versions are given regarding the matrimonial cruelty and unlawful demand of Rs.20,000/- made by the respondents. The versions of P.W. Sachin reveals that he has improvised the statement. He admits that though Smt. Jyoti had made complaint to him yet he never lodged any report with the Police. His Police statement comprises of material omissions regarding the nature of matrimonial cruelty meted out to Smt. Jyoti. So also (7) CRI.APP. 4396.2009 version of P.W. Bhanudas is inconsistent with his Police statement. The learned Sessions Judge appears to have duly appreciated the evidence placed on record. The acquittal of the respondents cannot be regarded as totally erroneous. The Appeal cannot be admitted only because some other view is possible. 11. In view of the foregoing discussion, leave to Appeal is rejected. The Application is disposed of. Sd/- [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] arp