[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN.APPLN.NO.204 OF 2007 Surekha Ranjan Kubal and others ..Applicants Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents ... Mr.Raja Thokare i/b Mr.A.M>Chimalkar and Amba G.Salekar Advocate for Applicants Ms.A.A.Mane A.P.P. for the State ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 13, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Leave to amend is granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. Heard the learned advocate for the applicants i.e. original accused nos.3 to 6 and the learned A.P.P. for the State. 3. The applicants are seeking discharge in Sessions Case No. 289 of 2002. The said case is under sections 498-A and 302 r.w. 120-B and 114 of IPC. 4. Mitali alias Rohini the niece of the complainant was married to original accused [-2-] no.1-Manoj Morawale. Original accused no.2 Shobhna was the mother of Manoj. Applicant nos.1 and 2 are sisters of Manoj, applicant no.3 is the brother of Manoj and applicant no.4 is the husband of the applicant no.1. Mitali was murdered, hence, FIR came to be lodged at D.B.Marg Police Station, Mumbai against the above mentioned these persons. 5. Mitali was residing along with her husband Manoj. All the applicants were admittedly residing separately. The charge sheet reveals that Mitali was killed by her husband Manoj original accused no.1. Manoj is no more and the case against him stands abated. There is no material to show that any of the applicants were present at the time when the incident took place. So also there is no material on record by way of statements of any of the witnesses to suggest that any of the applicants abetted Manoj to eliminate Mitali or that they had conspired with him to murder Mitali. 6. Admittedly, in the present case, no demand was made by any of the accused persons. It is not the case of the prosecution that any demand was made from the deceased or from her relatives for any [-3-] money, jewellery, property etc. Mr.Thakare submitted that none of these accused treated Mitali in such a manner as to drive her to commit suicide. However, the learned APP has pointed out that all the accused wanted to dispose of the family house in which deceased was residing with her husband and since deceased Mitali did not consent to dispose of the family house, she was being harassed by all accused. Sisters of Manoj i.e. petitioner nos.1 and 2 were also claiming right in the said premises, hence, they also wanted to dispose of family house so that they could get equal share and as this proposal was opposed by Mitali, she was being harassed and illtreated by the accused persons including the applicants. 7. The statements of the complainant, Anil, Sujata and Reshma show that Mitali had told them that her husband was torturing her and illtreating her as he was incited to do so by the present applicants. The learned APP has pointed out statement of Reshma. Reshma is the sister of Mitali. Reshma stated that when she used to meet her sister Mitali, at that time, Mitali used to tell her that her sisters in law Surekha and Nilam used to come [-4-] home and they used to incite her husband on false grounds that she had not given them water, she did not make tea for them etc. and they used to incite Manoj to mentally and physically harass Rohini and to abuse her in filthy language. Reshma has specifically stated that on one occasion, a quarrel took place between Manoj and Rohini on the say of the sisters and mother of Manoj and at that time, Manoj had tried to throttle Rohini. Due to this, there were black and blue marks and swelling on the neck of Rohini. 8. Statements of Ramesh Pisal and Sandhya also show illtreatment and harassment by applicant nos.3 and 4 to Mitali as she was opposing the sale of the house. On going through the material, it is seen that there is no sufficient material to proceed against the applicants under Section 302 of IPC. However, there is sufficient material to proceed against them under Section 498-A of IPC. Hence, case is made out for discharge only under Section 302 r.w. Section 120-B of IPC. In this view of the matter, the applicants are discharged under Section 302 and Section 302 r.w. 120-B or 114 of IPC. The trial to proceed under Section 498-A IPC. [-5-] 9. Trial Court shall not be influenced by any of the observations in this order while deciding the trial. 10. Revision application is disposed of. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]