{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1666 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPLICANT VERSUS Rajaram s/o Balaji Tidke RESPONDENT ....... Mr. K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.P.P. For applicant State Mr. Joydeep Chatterjee, Advocate for the respondent ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 23rd August 2010 PER COURT: 1. By this application, the applicant-State seeks leave to file appeal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jalna dated 15.12.2009, in Sessions Case No.51/2000, acquitting the respondent for an offence punishable u/s 306, 364 and 344 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. According to the prosecution one Suhasini Renukadas Raje, was residing residing along with her children at Jalna in the month January-February 1999. Since the husband of Suhasini had expired, Suhasini had received a handsome amount on {2} account of the untimely demise of her husband. According to the prosecution, the accused established friendly relations with Suhasini and later on developed intimacy and had illicit relations with her. Taking advantage of the close relationship, the accused had obtained hand-loan from Suhasini and when Suhasini was experiencing financial difficulties and had asked the accused to refund the said amount, the accused had declined to do so. Suhasini ultimately committed suicide. 3. In respect of the offence punishable u/s 365 and 344 of the Indian Penal Code,the prosecution had alleged that Abhijit, son of Suhasini, had been kidnapped by the accused and the accused had wrongfully confined him. It appears that a writ petition for heabs corpus was filed in this Court and this Court had directed the police to trace whereabouts of Abhijit. However, his whereabouts could not be traced. 4. Trial Court, after examining the evidence, came to the conclusion that the allegations against the accused fall short of establishing an offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court also came to the conclusion that there was no evidence that the accused had kidnapped Abhijit and had wrongfully confined him. The Trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondent-accused. 5. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, {3} we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court. We have also perused the Record and Proceedings. Upon such perusal we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court, to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, this criminal application fails and is dismissed accordingly. Leave refused. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapln1666-10