1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1967 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra - APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Vishal Sharnappa Barule and 3 others. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SD Kaldate, APP for Appellant; Mr.SP Urgunde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 & 2; Mr. S.V.Gundre,Advocate for Respondent Nos.3 & 4. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J. DATE : 22nd July, 2010. PER COURT: 1) Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2) This is an application, preferred by the appellant/State seeking leave to file appeal against the Judgment and order of acquittal dated 20th January, 2010, rendered by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in S.C.No. 101/2008, acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the offences punishable under 2 Sections 498A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3) In short, the prosecution case is that, victim – Shilpa married with accused no.1 – Vishal on 29th April, 2007 and accused no.2 – Vikas is her brother-in-law whereas accused nos. 3 – Sharanappa and accused no.4 – Sow. Vanmala are her parents-in-law. There is allegation of unlawful demand of Rs.3,00,000/- made by the accused from the victim – Shilpa to be brought from her parents house and due to non-fulfillment thereof, the victim – Shilpa was subjected to cruelty, such as starving, as well as assaulting her; mentally and physically torturing her. To bring the guilt at home against the accused persons, the prosecution examined in as much as five witnesses, viz. - i) PW 1 – Baburao s/o Dagdoba Ghuge, ASI, who registered the complaint; ii) PW 2 - Gajanan s/o Ishwarappa Nilange, brother of the victim, i.e. complainant. iii) PW 3 - Sharanappa Nageshappa Javle, who is maternal uncle of the victim; iv) PW 4 - Minakshi w/o Ishwarappa Nilange, mother of the victim. v) PW 5 - Mohan s/o Vishnupant Kamble, PSI, who registered A.D. on 5.6.2008 and is an Investigating Officer. 4) Admittedly, the victim Shilpa committed 3 suicide on 5.6.2008. Thus, considering the date of marriage, i.e. 29.4.2007 and committal of suicide by victim Shilpa on 5.6.2008, it appears she expired within the span of about fourteen months from the date of her marriage. 5) After appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge did not find the accused guilty and, therefore, acquitted them from the charges levelled against them. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the appellant/State has preferred the present application seeking leave to file appeal against the said acquittal of the accused. 6) I have perused the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Judge. 7) It has come in evidence that the first knowledge of alleged harassment meted out to victim Shilpa was in Deewali-2007, although it is alleged that she was subjected to cruelty after three months of marriage and thereafter suicide was committed by victim Shilpa on 5.6.2008, i.e. after about 7-8 months. Further it has come in evidence that during the said intervening period of 7-8 months, victim Shilpa and accused no.1 – Vishal had gone to pilgrimage to Tirupati as well 4 as visited Pune and meeting to maternal aunt, facing interview just before her death and, therefore, learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that the said evidence certainly disrupts the link of prosecution story in respect of the alleged cruelty and harassment which was likely to drive the victim Shilpa to commit suicide. 8) Besides that, the learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that it is an obligation upon the prosecution to establish the nexus between the cruelty and the suicide; and the peak point of cruelty may be inferred in November- December 2007, whereas victim Shilpa committed suicide after 7-8 months, i.e. on 5.6.2008 and, therefore, the learned Trial Judge has observed that there was no proximity of the alleged cruelty and the date of committal of suicide and there appears to be substance in the said observation. 9) In the circumstances, having gone through the evidence on record and the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Judge in the impugned judgment, it appears that same cannot be faulted with and the view adopted by the learned Trial Judge is possible view to be adopted and same does not appear to be perverse and, 5 therefore, the present application bears no substance and same is devoid of any merit and same, therefore, deserves to be rejected. 10) In the result, the present application being sans merit, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. (SHRIHARI P.DAVARE) JUDGE bdv/cran1967.10