1 cri-appln.14-11 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.14 of 2011 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Satish Digambar Dhotre & Ors. ..Respondents Mrs.M.M. Deshmukh, APP for applicant. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 24TH FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. This is an application filed by the State of Maharashtra for seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., against the order of acquittal passed in Sessions Case No.21 of 2009 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sangli. In the said case all the 5 respondents came to be tried for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. 2. As per the prosecution case the deceased Meena, the daughter of 2 cri-appln.14-11 P.W.1 Vilas Nalwade resident of Kolhapur was married with accused No.1 on 5th July, 2000 and from the said wedlock she already had two daughters. After about 7 years of married life she conceived for the third time, but while in the 7th month of pregnancy she delivered a dead baby. She committed suicide on 9th April, 2008 while in the matrimonial home i.e. at village Palus, District Sangli. 3. The prosecution examined in all 5 witnesses. There is no doubt that the prosecution proved suicidal death of Meena and as the date of incident was beyond the period of 7 years after her marriage with accused No.1 the offence punishable under Section 304B of I.P.C. could not be made out, as has been rightly held by the trial Court. 4. Mrs. Dehmukh, the learned A.P.P., prays for leave to appeal for the offrences punishable under Section 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. against all the accused.. 5. The evidence of P.W.1-Vilas Nalwade, P.W.2-Durgesh Vilas Nalwade (brother of the deceased) and P.W.3-Pandurang Hanumant Nalwade, uncle of the deceased goes to show that at no point of time during the 8 years of 3 cri-appln.14-11 matrimonial life of the deceased any complaint of harassment or cruelty was lodged against any of the accused. The P.W.1 is financially well off. He admitted that he is in the business of stone mining at Kolhapur with a bungalow. On the other hand accused No.1 was unemployed when he was married and though had some agricultural land remained unemployed except doing some daily wages job at village Palus. Meena came from an affluent family and her two other sisters were also married in financially well off families. In the cross examination of P.W.1 it has come on record that after she delivered a dead baby she had gone in a mental shock and the date of incident is proximate to the date of last delivery. He clearly stated that Meena had become obstinate and angry and her behaviour had changed. In these circumstances the trial Court rightly concluded that the prosecution failed to make out a case for conviction under Section 498A as well as Section 306 of I.P.C. We are satisfied that the evidence so adduced by the prosecution and the reasoning given by the trial Court in the impugned order of acquittal does not call for re-consideration at our hands. 6. Hence, leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)