IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION jmi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.592 OF 2011 Mr. Deepak Wamanrao Patil -- APPLICANT V/s. State of Maharashtra -- RESPONDENT Mr. Shirish Gupte, Senior Advocate i/b. Mrs. Racheeta Dhuru, Advocate for Applicant Mrs. R.V. Newton, APP for State. CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 11th OCTOBER 2011 P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The application Exh.54 in Sessions Case No.71 of 2010 was moved before the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Pune seeking to incorporate Sec.304(B) of I.P.C. against the accused applicant. The learned Judge allowed the said application on 5th April, 2011, propriety where of is now questioned. 3. The learned Senior Counsel took me to the letter purportedly written by the deceased to her maternal uncle on 7th May, 2009 in which she does not implicate the accused applicant with accusations of making any demand, which allegedly forced her to commit suicide. The learned Senior Counsel submits, barring the statement of her brother which accelerated the prosecution, there is nothing to demonstrate any demand of the Dowry or any other demand from accused applicant. The learned Senior Counsel also referred to the consent divorce petition moved before the Judge Family Court at Pune in Case No.309 of 2009 dated 5th June, 2009. 4. At this stage of the matter, the worth of the evidence need not be scanned to hold that, there is no sufficient material against the accused applicant to prosecute him for offence punishable U/s.304(B) r/w.34 of I.P.C. The letter dated 7th May, 2009 is in consequential as it deals with affairs of her husband the Accused. The statement of the complainant, to which reference is given by the learned Judge in paragraph 7 of his order, is still on record it has not yet been shattered. Going to the text of the letter referred above at Page 85, will even otherwise not mitigate or dilute the facts of the FIR as narrated by her to estranged brother. The act of committing suicide on 5th June, 2009 by deceased Manjusha apparently is due to the divorce petition, being moved on the same date before the learned Judge, Family Court. Her death is otherwise than normal circumstances, within 7 years of her marriage. It is primarily seen, soon before her death she was tortured to meet demand. The circumstances also illustrates, she was not willing to have divorce but she was forced to do so. Taking these aspects of matter into consideration I do not see any error on the part of the learned Judge in proceeding to frame charge U/s.304-B of the Indian Penal Code. Application lacks of merit dismissed. Observations made by this court are restricted for the present proceeding only. [ K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. ]