* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2008 Prabhavati Shantaram Bait ....Applicant/Orig.Complainant Versus Mangesh Mohan Dhulap & anr. ....Respondents/Orig.Accd No.1&2 ========= Ms.Shubhangi Chavan h/f.Mr.V.V.Purwant, Adv.for applicant. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for State. CORAM: SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 29TH JULY, 2009. P.C. :- 1. Heard counsel for both sides. 2. This Criminal Revision Application is preferred by the original complainant who is the mother of the deceased to challenge the order of acquittal by the court of Sessions of respondents no.1 and 2 in proceedings filed for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows : . The deceased was married to respondent no.1 on 24th April, 2000. Respondent no.2 is the mother-in-law of respondent no.1. After the * 2 * marriage, the deceased was subjected to mental cruelty and unlawful demands for money and gold. This led the deceased to commit suicide on 2nd July 2007 by hanging herself. A complaint came to be filed three days after the incident i.e. on 5th July 2007. The prosecution examined nine witnesses in support of its case. On appreciation of the evidence before it, the trial court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had failed to establish that there was any demand made by respondents no.1 and 2 for money or that there was any pressure brought on the deceased for the same. The learned Judge has taken note that immediately after the incident of 2nd July, 2001 the police had recorded ADR proceedings in which the father of the deceased made a categorical statement that he had no complaint against anybody in connection with death of his daughter. It is the evidence of one of the Investigating Officers that the relatives of the deceased had been visting the police station for three days after the date of the incident and only thereafter the complaint came to be filed. The statements recorded by the police show that the relationship between the deceased and respondents no.1 and 2 was good. None of the neighbours supported the prosecution story in respect of the allegations of cruelty. Infact, P.W.No.3 one of the neighbours had stated in his evidence that the deceased had never complained before her of any harrasment at the instance of respondents no.1 and 2. The deceased used to take tutions of P.W.No. * 3 * 3 and it is the evidence of P.W.No.3 that the deceased used to be engrossed in her own thoughts and also used to take some tablets. The learned Judge has observed that there is no evidence before the court as to what actually happened on the date of the incident. 4. Ms.Chaudhari, learned counsel for the applicants next submits that at the time of the her death, the deceased was four months pregnant. However, this claim made in the evidence of the complainant, the mother of the deceased is not supported by medical evidence. The post-mortem report does not show that the deceased was four months pregnant. The doctor performing the post-mortem examination also stated in his evidence that he had not noticed that the deceased was four months pregnant. Perusal of the entire record shows that there is no error or illegality in the judgment of the trial court in arriving at a conclusion of acquittal. There is no manifest error or illegality on record. Hence, the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J]