-1- IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.529 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.529 OF 2007 APPLICATION NO.529 OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant vs. Arvind Dattatray Londhe & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Rajesh More, A.P.P. for State Ms A.B.Kasbe h/f Mr.V.V.Purwant for respondent Nos.1 & 2 Mr.I.M.Khairdi for Respondent No.3 i.e. original accused No.3 CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE DATE DATE : JUNE 24,2008. : JUNE 24,2008. : JUNE 24,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. The Applicant State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 29-8-2006 passed by the VII Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No.28 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-original accused of the offences under sections 306, 504 , 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case is that deceased Manohar had taken a loan of Rs.50,000/- from accused no.1-Arvind and Rs.10,000/- from accused No.3-Pramod for purchasing a truck. All the three accused were demanding that the deceased should repay the loan amount and they were abusing him and beating him on that count. On account of this, the deceased committed suicide on 7-10-2003 by hanging himself. -2- 3. Heard learned A.P.P. for the Applicant-State, the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. original accused 1 and 2 and the Ld. Advocate Mr.Khairdi for Respondent No.3 i.e. original accused No.3 and Mr.S.D.Patil learned Advocate for the complainant P.W.No.1 Popat Nanavare who is the real brother of deceased Manohar. Perused the judgment and order and the evidence which has been produced by the Ld. APP. 4. In order to prove the case, the prosecution has examined four witnesses. P.W.No.1 Popat Nanavare-complainant is the real brother of Manohar who had committed suicide. On perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is noticed that the complainant has not stated that the accused persons gave any abuses to Manohar at any point of time. 5. P.W.No.3-Satyasheela is wife of deceased Manohar. She stated that accused persons used to come to her house for demanding money and they used to abuse and beat her husband. It is pertinent to note that the said witness has neither specifically stated as to when the accused persons came to her house and abused and beat her husband nor she stated the last date on which the accused persons came to her house and abused and beat her husband. In such case, it is difficult to ascertain whether there was any proximity between act of the accused persons and the act of Manohar of committing suicide. -3- 6. P.W.No.4-Gorakh Nanavare is the neighbour of Manohar. He has stated that accused Nos.2 and 3 were abusing and assaulting Manohar for recovery of loan amount and due to this Manohar committed suicide. A very vague and general statement has been made by this witness. This witness too has not stated any date when such incident occurred nor has he stated the last date when such incident occurred, hence, it is not possible to held that the act of Manohar committing suicide is the proximate cause of the act of the accused. 7. P.W.no.5 Shamrao Nsnsbstr has only stated that some quarrel had taken place between Arvind accused No.1 and Manohar in front of his house. It is not stated that any of the accused beat Manohar at that time. He only stated that accused no.2 had abused Manohar. No specific words of abuse has been stated by this witness. This witness does not state that any threats were given by any of the accused persons or that any of the accused persons beat Manohar. It is also pertinent to note that this witness has not stated any specific date on which the quarrel took place. Moreover, the fact that the quarrel had taken place between the accused persons and Manohar is stated by the witness Shamrao by way of an improvement. In such case no reliance can be placed on the evidence of P.W.no.5-Shamrao. -4- 8. The case of the prosecution is that as the accused were insisting that Manohar should return the money and they were abusing and assaulting him, hence Manohar committed suicide. No witness has stated when the abuses were given or assault has taken place. No witness has stated the words used by the accused persons. Even the last date of assault and abuse has not been stated by any of the witnesses. There is no material to reach the conclusion that the suicide by Manohar was the direct result of the act of accused. It is an admitted fact that the deceased was not returning the amount which was taken as a loan by him from the accused persons. Insistence by the accused persons that deceased should return the loan and few abuses or even minor assault by them would not result in a normal prudent man committing suicide. I have already observed earlier that there was no reliable material to show that Manohar committed suicide on account of any act by the accused. 9. The learned Sessions Judge had taken into consideration all these facts and thereafter acquitted the accused. On going through the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view, hence, no interference is called for. 10. Application is rejected. -5- (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)