1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2005 The State of Maharashtra Appellant V E R S U S 1. Parmeshwar Sangappa Kalse, Aged 24 years, Occupation Agriculture, Resident of Anandwadi, Taluka Deoni, District Latur. 2. Sushilabai Sangappa Kalse, Aged 45 years, Occupation Household, Resident of as above. Respondents Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, APP for the appellant Mr. B.K. Pawar, Advocate for the respondent No.1 CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 25th August, 2010 ORAL ORDER 1. Heard. 2. The State of Maharashtra is seeking leave to file this appeal under Section 378 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udgir, in Sessions Case No. 19 of 2004, in which he acquitted both the respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The respondent No.1 was married to the deceased in 2001. On 12th June, 2003, deceased, the wife of the respondent No.1, was taken to the hospital in burnt condition. She was admitted to the Civil Hospital, Latur. She was treated there for next seven days. But, on 19th June, she succumbed to the burn injuries. On 25th June, a complaint was lodged. The father of the 2 deceased alleged in the complaint that his daughter was illtreated by the respondents mainly on the count that she was unable to cook properly. On the basis of this complaint, an offence was registered and the respondents were prosecuted and tried. The prosecution recorded evidence of eleven witnesses. Some of the witnesses were close relatives of the deceased. All along it is their case that after the deceased was admitted to the hospital, she informed them that she set herself on fire mainly because she was fed up of the illtreatment meted out to her by the respondents. They also stated that on the very day of the incident, the deceased was beaten up by both the respondents. The prosecution witnesses also narrated the earlier incidents of illtreatment of the deceased. The learned Judge of the lower Court disbelieved their case mainly because there occurred inordinate delay in lodging of the complaint. He noted down that on 12th June, 2003, the incident had taken place, and despite the fact that the deceased was admitted to a Government Hospital, no complaint was lodged about this incident of attempted suicide to police by anyone. 4. The question is, whether this part of appreciation of the case of the prosecution, by the learned Judge of the lower Court, is proper ? The answer is in affirmative. I perused the entire record of the lower Court and found that the record of the Civil Hospital was not called before the lower Court. The Medical Officer was not examined. Therefore, it is unclear as to what the deceased informed to the Medical Officer when she was admitted in the hospital. It is also unclear as to what did the Medical Officer write about the history of the patient. It is common knowledge that in a case of this nature the Medical Officer would first ask about the history of the patient. He would invariably note down such history on the case paper of the patient. If he learns in this process that the victim had probably attempted suicide, then for him, it would be a case of medico legal 3 nature, and then, he would inform about the case to the constable on duty at the hospital. Assuming that on the day when the deceased was admitted, history of attempted suicide was not given to the Medical Officer, atleast during the next seven days, such information could have been given by the near relatives of the deceased to the Medical Officer or to the constable who is generally deputed at the Civil Hospital. Since there is nothing on record to indicate that such information was given, the police had no reason to visit the deceased while she was taking treatment at the hospital. The police could not record her statement, neither they could sent Executive Magistrate to record her statement during her ailment. In absence of this vital link, the prosecution case becomes very thin. 5. There is one more reason why the impugned Judgment should not be disturbed. Even though the death occurred on 19th June, 2003, the report was not made till 25th June, 2003. There again occurred delay of six days. There is no explanation on record for this delay. In view of above, the impugned Judgment is not assailable. The leave to file appeal is refused. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) SRM/CRIAPL/295/05