1 CRI.APPEAL NO.299/1994 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.299 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra. ...APPELLANT (Ori.Complainant) VERSUS 1. Babru Raghunath Gurav, age 21 yrs. 2. Gangabai Raghunath Gurav, Age 45 yrs., 3. Raghunath Bandu Gurav, age 60 yrs., 4. Chababai w/o Bandu Gurav, age 28 yrs., All r/o. Hangarga, Tq. Tuljapur, District Osmanabad. ...RESPONDENTS (Ori.Accused) ... Smt.S.D.Shelke, APP for appellant State. Mr.Ajay T.Kanawade, Adv., h/f Mr. S.B.Talekar, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ... CORAM: A.H.JOSHI & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. Date: SEPT.,23rd ,2011 *** 2 CRI.APPEAL NO.299/1994 ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.H.Joshi, J.) 1. The accused were charged for commission of offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC and alternatively, for Section 306 of IPC. 2. The case proceeds on the foundation that due to ill-treatment, on account of demand of a golden ring, deceased Mahananda was ill-treated by the accused persons. 3. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses. Out of those, PW Nos. 1 to 3, father Saitrappa ( PW No.1 - Exh.48), mother Ramabai (PW No.2 - Exh.50) and cousin Nagnath ( PW No.3 - Exh.51) of the deceased and PW No.6 Subhash ( PW No.6 - Exh.88), an independent witness, all are examined on the point of the demand of gold ring and ill-treatment. 4. Subhash Shankar Talwar (PW No.6 - Exh. 56), is out and out hearsay witness. He says that he came to know about the facts from PW No.1 Saitrappa. 5. Accepting every word and statement contained in the testimony of PW Nos.1 to 3, their version can be denoted only with the description; namely, no evidence. The witnesses 3 CRI.APPEAL NO.299/1994 do not attribute whatsoever in the nature of primary evidence that the accused persons demanded gold ring and on that account, ill- treated Mahananda. 6. All that these witnesses - PW Nos. 1 to PW No.3 - say is what "Mahananda told them" and said description, as well, does not conform to dowry related demand and, ill-treatment based thereon, or due to the said demand, of such nature and extent that, the deceased Mahananda was thereby driven to commit suicide and/or inflict upon herself such bodily injury so as to endanger her life, as contemplated under Section 498-A of IPC. 7. Moreover, the death, as reported, was due to slip of foot in the well. 8. In the given situation, we are satisfied that the appeal does not warrant interference, rather it did not deserve filing. 9. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. (A.R.JOSHI, J.) (A.H.JOSHI,J.) ... AGP/299-94cr.a