1 crapn1320.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1320 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through : P.S.I. City Police Station, Kaij, Dist. Beed. ...APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Rustum s/o Bhajrang Chigure, Age: 55 years, 2. Parubai w/o Bhajrang Chigure, Age: 50 years, 3. Balasaheb s/o Manik Mane, Age: 30 years, 4. Tai @ Sunita w/o Balasaheb Mane, Age: years, 5. Phulchand s/o Rustum Chigure, Age: 28 years, All R/o. Tambva, Tq. Kaij, District Beed. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. V.D. Rakh, A.P.P. for applicant-State. Shri. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for respondents. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 8TH FEBRUARY, 2011 2 crapn1320.10 PER COURT : . Heard learned A.P.P. for the applicant State and learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. Since the trial Court has extensively stated the facts in Para Nos. 2 to 8 in its judgment, it is not necessary to repeat the same. 2. Upon perusal of the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2 and also other evidence brought on record, it clearly emerges that deceased died accidental death. The trial Court, taking into consideration the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and in particular, evidence of P.W. Nos. 3 and 4, has observed that from A.D. Inquiry, it reveals that deceased Shoba was leading happy married life and she died due to drowning accidentally. The trial Court has also observed that the evidence of P.W. Nos.1 and 2 is of general nature. No specific instances have been quoted by them on what date and on what occasions, 3 crapn1320.10 there was demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by the respondents. Apart from this, it is admitted position that the complaint is lodged after 38 days of the incident. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment, the trial Court has made every endeavour to scan the evidence and also discussed the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the subject and acquitted the respondents. 3. Upon independent scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, it emerges that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses i.e. P.W. Nos. 1 and 2 is vague and general in nature. It has come on record that P.W. No. 1 is working as labourer and even story of the prosecution that he had paid dowry amount of Rs.75,000/- is also not believed by the trial Court. In offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution must convincingly establish that soon before the commission of suicide, the accused were instrumental and abetted commission of suicide. Circumstances should be in immediate proximity. 4 crapn1320.10 It is well established by the catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, Court should remind itself that only if there is a specific cogent and convincing evidence brought on record by the prosecution, then only accused should be convicted under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Importantly the evidence must show that soon before the commission of suicide the accused led or abetted commission of suicide, as contemplated under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, in my opinion, so far as offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, evidence which was led by the prosecution was not sufficient. Secondly, so far as offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, as stated earlier, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is general in nature. On the contrary, prosecution evidence itself shows that death of the deceased is accidental in nature. P.W. No. 4 has stated in 5 crapn1320.10 his evidence before the trial Court that death of the deceased was accidental. . The alleged incident had taken place on 22-08-2008 and the complaint is lodged on 30-09-2008. 4. Taking overall view of the matter and viewed from any angle, no case is made out by the applicant to grant leave to file appeal. Hence the application seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 24-11-2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District Beed in Sessions Case No.51 of 2009 is refused. The application stands rejected. 5. Registry to send back original Record and Proceedings to the concerned Court, forthwith. [ S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/feb11/crapn1320.10