17.appln3782-09 RMA IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3782 OF 2009 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Vs Appasaheb Shivaji Pawar .. Respondent Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, APP for the State Mr. V.V. Parwant for the Respondent CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J DATE : 6th AUGUST, 2010 P.C.: 1. The applicant - State of Maharashtra has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 29.05.2009 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 270 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the respondent i.e the original accused came to be acquitted of the offences under Section 306 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated is that the complainant PW1 Bharat Dhekale was the resident of Vairagwadi, Post Asti, Tal. Mohol. His son Vikas used to 1 17.appln3782-09 reside at Solapur along with his daughter Savita (deceased). His daughter Savita was serving in police department since 2005 as a lady constable. She was attached to Jail Road Police Station. The respondent accused was also working in the very police station as a police constable. It is further the prosecution case that a love affair developed between Savita and the respondent. However, thereafter, the respondent broke off relations with her. Due to this, Savita committed suicide by hanging herself. According to the prosecution, at the time of her death, she was wearing a gown and a chit was found in the gown wherein she has stated that the respondent was responsible for her death. Hence, FIR came to be lodged and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge under Section 306 of IPC came to be framed against the accused person to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is that of total denial and false implication. 4. I have heard the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. I have also perused the evidence which was produced by the learned APP. After carefully considering the matter, for the reasons stated herein below, 2 17.appln3782-09 I am of the opinion that the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not call for any interference. 5. The prosecution case is based on the chit "Article 9". It is the prosecution case that the chit was found in the gown worn by the deceased at the time of her death wherein it was stated by the deceased that the respondent was responsible for her death. It is pertinent to note that PW1 complainant - Bhagwan Dhekale who is the father of the deceased does not identify the handwriting on the chit as that of his daughter Savita. So also, PW7 Vikas who is the brother of Savita does not identify the handwriting on the said chit as that of his sister Savita. Same is the case with PW 6 Bandu Vyavhare who is the maternal uncle of Savita, he also does not identify the handwriting on the said chit as that of his niece Savita. Thus, it is seen that even the near relatives of Savita did not identify the handwriting on the chit to be that of Savita in which allegations have been made against the accused respondent. 6. Even as regards the motive for Savita to commit suicide is concerned, there is no material brought on record by the prosecution. PW1 complainant Bhagwan Dhekale-father of the deceased, PW6 Bandu Vyavhare - uncle of the deceased and PW7 3 17.appln3782-09 Vikas - brother of the deceased are totally silent about Savita having an affair with the Respondent. There is also no mention by the witnesses that the respondent broke off the affair with Savita and due to this, Savita committed suicide. PW 8 Sapan Rathod and PW 9 Pravin Sakpal are the neighbors of the Savita. These witnesses have also not supported the case of the prosecution. 7. The Investigation Officer sent the chit along with notebook and other documents purported to be in the handwriting of Savita to the handwriting expert. It is pertinent to note that PW1 Bhagwan - father of the deceased, PW 7 Vikas - brother of the deceased and PW 6 Bandu - maternal uncle of the deceased have not identified the handwriting on the note books to be that of Savita. The prosecution has also relied on one leave application which was sent to the handwriting expert to compare with the suicide note. However, PW1 Bhagwan, PW 6 Bandu and PW 7 Vikas have all denied that the handwriting on the said leave application was that of Savita. The prosecution has also examined PW 10 Dharmraj in respect of leave application. However, cross-examination of PW 10 Dharamraj shows that this leave application was not written in his presence. Deceased Savita was not working under him and prior to this, he had not taken any writing from deceased Sunita. His evidence 4 17.appln3782-09 further shows that he did not insist that the person should write leave application in his presence and there is no material to show that on that day, Savita wrote the leave application in his presence. He has also admitted that he had not stated while his statement was recorded that the leave application was that of Savita. Thus, looking to these facts which have been emerged from the cross-examination of PW 10 Dharmraj, I find that his evidence does not inspire confidence. 8. The prosecution has also relied upon the evidence of handwriting expert PW 11 Deepak Pandit. However, looking to the fact that the close relatives of Savita denied that the chit is in the handwriting of deceased Savita and the fact that they have also denied that handwriting on the notebooks and the leave application and other documents was in the handwriting of Savita, the conclusion arrived by the learned Sessions Judge that in such case, it will be unsafe to rely on the opinion of PW 11 Deepak Pandit, cannot be faulted. 9. I may make here useful reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in the State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Dinesh, 2009(3) SCALE 345 wherein in case of appeal against acquittal, it has been held as under: "Cr.P. Code 302 - Appeal against acquittal - Held. 5 17.appln3782-09 If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record - the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by trial court." Thus, when two conclusions can be arrived at on the basis of the evidence on record, the conclusion which is favourable to accused should be accepted. Therefore, overall considering the evidence on record in this case, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, I am not inclined to interfere in the judgment and order of acquittal. In view of the above, leave to file appeal, is refused. 10. Application is rejected. [SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] 6 17.appln3782-09 7