[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLN.NO.1371 OF 2007 IN CRI.APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Irfan Sharfoddin Inamdar and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.Y.S.Shinde APP for Applicant-State Mr.Uday Warunjikar Advocate for Respondents ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JUNE 04, 2008 DATE : JUNE 04, 2008 DATE : JUNE 04, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file an appeal against the judgment and order dated 7.12.2006 passed by the learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge in Case No.526 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that: . Nahida got married to Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the parents of [-2-] Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.2 is the brother of Respondent No.1. After the marriage there was demand of money to take a flat on leave and licence basis. So also, there was a demand of Rs.4 lakhs. As the demand was not met, Nahida was harassed and illtreated by the accused persons, due to which she committed suicide by hanging herself on 4.8.2005. 3. I have heard the learned APP for the Applicant-State and the learned advocate for the Respondents-accused. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the evidence which has been produced by the learned APP. 4. It is the case of the complainant that in respect of the demand of Rs.4 lakhs to buy a flat, the accused persons had demanded Rs.35,000/- as a deposit for the flat. PW 1 Bashir Ahmed who is the father of the victim and the complainant, has stated that he gave the amount to accused no.1 by transferring the amount into the account of accused no.1 with ICICI Bank. However, in the complaint the complainant has stated that Rs.35000/- was given in cash. It is pertinent to note that PW 3 Rahimunissa has stated that the demand was not made [-3-] by the accused persons for Rs.35,000/- but the demand was made by her own daughter for the said amount. On the other hand, PW 3 Rahimunissa who is the mother of the deceased girl, has stated that the payment of Rs.35,000/- was made by transferring the entire amount into the account of accused no.1 with ICICI Bank. Thus, it is seen that version of PW 1 and PW 3 is discrepant. Moreover, there is discrepancy in the evidence of the complainant and the facts stated by him in his complaint. 5. It is the prosecution case that after making the payment of Rs.35,000/- to the accused by complainant, husband of the victim and other accused persons took a flat on rent in Kauser Baug Housing Society Kondhava, Pune and they stayed there along with the victim. However, the Agreement Exhibit-40 clearly shows that the said flat was taken by the accused persons on rent much prior to the marriage of accused no.1 with the victim. On account of this discrepancy, doubt arises in the mind about the veracity of these prosecution witnesses. 6. PW 3 the mother of the victim girl has also [-4-] tried to establish that on 24.7.2005 during the night, she received a call from her daughter and thereafter she narrated the information given by her daughter to her husband (PW 1) and accordingly her husband went to his daughter to fetch her. However, the evidence of PW 1 nowhere discloses regarding receiving telephone call by his wife on 24.7.2005 from the victim. PW 3 had admitted in her cross examination that "it is true that till the incident from 31.7.2005 nobody visited the house of her daughter from her family members." This admission affects the prosecution case. 7. No details of any cruelty or harassment to the victim, have been stated by any of the witnesses and only vague and general allegations have been made by the witnesses. It is a settled law that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract section 498-A of IPC. There is no evidence on record to establish that there was such type of cruelty to the victim which compelled or forced her to commit suicide. Hence, the nexus between the cruelty and suicide is not established by the prosecution. There is also no such evidence to establish the gravity of the alleged cruelty [-5-] towards the victim at the hands of the accused persons. It is a settled law that mere harassment of the woman does not amount to cruelty as defined in Explanation to Section 498-A of the IPC. As per the ratio laid down by His Lordship in the case between Bhagwan Sakharam Said and another Vs. Bhagwan Sakharam Said and another Vs. Bhagwan Sakharam Said and another Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 410) State of Maharashtra (2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 410) State of Maharashtra (2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 410), the prosecution did not produce any evidence to show that there was nexus between the alleged cruelty with that of the suicide. If the versions of PW 1 and PW 3 are taken into consideration, they are not sufficient to establish regarding the alleged cruelty towards the victim which would be sufficient to commit suicide. 8. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. No interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]