1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5250/2010 The State of Maharashtra Applicant V E R S U S Babasaheb s/o Ambadas Chouthmal and ors. Respondent Mrs. Y.M.Kshirsagar, APP for applicant. Shri C.K.Shinde Advocate for the respondent nos. 1 to 6. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 8 th JUNE, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 26.8.2010, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge-3, Aurangabad in SC No.110/2007, thereby acquitting the respondents/original accused for the offence punishable under section 498A, 306, 504 r.w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 26.8.2010 and record and proceeding with the assistance of learned 2 counsel for the parties. 4. Victim namely Suvarna married with Babasaheb i.e. accused No.1 on 3.6.2005 and since then she went to reside with her inlaws at her matrimonial home. Accused No.2-Subhash and accused No.3- Deepak are brothers-in-laws, where as accused No.4 Ambadas is father-in-law and accused No.5- Ushabai is mother-in- law, accused No.6 Pushpabai is her sister-in-law. The date of the incident occurred on 6.5.2006, on which day victim Suvarna poured kerosene on her person and ablazed herself and ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 16.06.2006, since she sustained 52% of burn injuries. 5. There are allegations against accused persons that deceased Suvarna was subjected to mental and physical cruelty by them and there was unlawful demand of Rs.1.00 lac by them to deceased Suvarna, to be brought by her from her parents for the purchase of tempo. It is also alleged that accused persons used to insult and humiliate to deceased Suvarna that she was unable to prepare food. It is further alleged that husband of deceased 3 Suvarna namely Babasaheb had kept one concubine. It is further alleged that because of harassment and ill-treatment meted out to Suvarna at the hands of accused persons and humiliation sustained by her and also keeping concubine by her husband, drove her to commit suicide on 6.5.2006 by pouring kerosene on herself and set herself on fire. 6. Accused persons faced trial for the offence punishable under sections 498A,306, 504 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. To substantiate the said charges, prosecution examined in as much as six witnesses as below : a] P.W.1 Shivaji Gangadhar Teke- Complainant : father of victim. B] PW 2 Dwaraka w/o Shivaji Teke - mother of victim. C] PW 3 Bhimraj Gangadhar Teke - uncle of the victim. D] PW 4 Sampat Sakharam Shinde, who recorded dying declaration of the victim. E] PW 5 Dr. Avinash Daulatrao Yelikar . f] PW 6 PSI Vishram Tukaram Dhumal Investigating officer. 7. Prosecution case prominently centers around the dying declaration Exh.40 and on perusal of the contents of the said dying 4 declaration, it appears that there is no reference of any cruelty/harassment/ill-treatment to which deceased Suvarna was allegedly subjected by the accused persons. Moreover, the contents of the said dying declaration do not reflect hat her husband -accused No.1 had kept any concubine. Moreover, it is also pertinent to note that said dying declaration no where whispers that any suspicion was raised by accused in respect of her character. The contents of dying declaration simply says that at the relevant day the victim Suvarna and her husband accused No.1 Babasaheb were only at home and since Suvarna did not prepare curry properly; accused No.1 was angry with her and stated to her that since she could not prepare proper curry, why she married with him and why her parents got married herself with him. Thereupon, victim Suvarna got annoyed and committed suicide by pouring kerosene can of five liters on her person and set her ablazed. Thereafter she sustained burn injuries and, therefore, shouted and her husband who was sleeping rushed there and tried to extinguish the fire by pouring water on her person and called his uncle and 5 shifted her to hospital by jeep for medical treatment. 8. Thus it is apparent even from the said dying declaration that accused no.1 Babasaheb extinguished fire sustained by victim Suvarna and shifted her to hospital for medical treatment. Accordingly contents of dying declaration do not connect the accused person/s to the alleged crimes. 9. Besides, none of the prosecution witnesses have given particulars and disclosed that as to what point of time deceased Suvarna disclosed them about the alleged demand of Rs.1.00 lac for purchasing the tempo. Moreover, prosecution has not examined any independent witness to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons. As witnesses examined by prosecution PW1 Shivaji – Father & complainant, PW2- Dwaraka mother, and PW 3 Bhimraj uncle, are the relatives and family members of deceased Suvarna and even their testimonies are not helpful in respect of alleged demand and ill treatment given to deceased Suvarna. 10. In the circumstances the view adopted by the learned 6 Trial Court while acquitting the accused persons after scrutinizing and assessing the evidence on record is a possible view and reasoning given there for cannot be faulted with, and the said view does not appear to be perverse and therefore, no interference therein is called for in the Appellate jurisdiction. Consequently present application deserves to be rejected. 11. In the result, present application which is sans merits stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal is refused. Record and proceeding be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ... aaa/5250.10