1 Cri.Application No. 4005 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4005 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..APPLICANT VERSUS Anil Subhash Vyavahare & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the applicant; Mr D.S. Manorkar, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 7 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 23rd December, 2010 PER COURT : This is an application filed by the applicant - State challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge-5, Aurangabad, dated 27.4.2010, in Sessions Case No.174 of 2008, acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under section 498-A, 306, 304-B, read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Rani was found unconscious in the field on the allegation that she had consumed a pesticide. The consumption of the pesticide resulted in 2 Cri.Application No. 4005 of 2010 her death and two days thereafter, i.e. on 15.2.2008 a first information report came to be lodged against the accused. On the basis of the first information report investigation commenced, which resulted in filing a charge-sheet against the present respondents. 2. Prosecution principally relied upon the evidence of the maternal relatives of deceased Rani to substantiate the allegations that a demand for Rs.1,500/- was made by the accused for purchase of a vehicle known as Tempo. The prosecution had further alleged that the accused had administered poison which had resulted in death of deceased Rani. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence of the maternal relatives of deceased Rani could not be relied upon to establish an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code on account of the inherent weakness in their evidence. In respect of the charge relating to section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court found that the evidence led by the prosecution fell woefully short of proving the offence against the respondent beyond reasonable doubt. The scene of the offence panchnama did not show the presence of any container containing the poison. Poisonous substance, i.e. pesticide was also not found in the house of the accused. In fact, the alleged pesticide which is said to have been administered by the accused to deceased Rani was not traced at all. The Trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that even an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out. 3 Cri.Application No. 4005 of 2010 3. A reference at this stage may usefully be made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramgopal vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 S.C. 656. The Supreme Court in the said judgment at paragraph 15 has held that in a case of death by poisoning it is only when the motive is there and it is proved, that the deceased died of the poison in question, that the accused had that poison in his possession and that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to the deceased that the Court can infer that the accused administered the poison to the deceased resulting in his death. In the present case, as pointed out by us above, poison was not found in the possession of the accused. No witnesses have been examined by the prosecution to show that the accused had an opportunity of administering the poison and that deceased had died as a result of the poison administered by the accused. The Trial Court has found that the defence of the accused that deceased Rani was spraying pesticide on the crop and there was accidental ingestion of the poison which may have resulted in her death, as not probable. However, we find that since the prosecution has failed to establish that the accused had administered the poison and there is no evidence on record to indicate that deceased Rani had committed suicide, the fact whether the accused has been said to establish that deceased Rani had accidentally consumed the poison pales into insignificance. 4 Cri.Application No. 4005 of 2010 4. We have heard the learned A.P.P. in support of the application and we find that the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. accordingly, this Criminal Application fails and is dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V. HARDAS, J.) amj/criap4005.10