1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 576 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2011 (The State of Maharashtra .v. Bandu Kisnaji Kamble and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri T.A. Mirza, APP for the applicant/State. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 02ND DECEMBER, 2011. By this application, the applicant/State seeks leave to file appeal challenging the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Wardha dated 04.06.2011 in Sessions Case No. 96 of 2008 acquitting the respondents for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It appears that deceased Kalpana was married to accused No.1 on 23.05.2004 and Kalpana committed suicide on 01.04.2008. The prosecution, in support of its case that deceased Kalpana was subjected to cruelty on account of failure of her relatives to meet the unlawful demand, had examined about seven witnesses. The prosecution had examined the parents of deceased Kalpana as well as her aunt and uncle and a neighbour. The trial Court, upon appreciation of their evidence, came to the conclusion at paragraph 28 of the judgment that the evidence in respect of alleged demand was extremely discrepant and the evidence of the witnesses was omnibus without giving any specific details. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the evidence on record did not unerringly establish as to when the demand for Rs.60,000/- and/or motor cycle was made to the parents of Kalpana. The trial Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the evidence of the relatives in support of the allegation of ill treatment did not inspire confidence. The trial Court further found that there was no evidence that since how many days prior 2 to her death, deceased Kalpana was ill treated on account of demand of dowry and, therefore, offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code was not proved. The trial Court, therefore, gave the benefit of doubt and acquitted the respondents. We have heard the learned APP in support of the application for leave. With the assistance of the learned APP, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial Court as well as we have perused the evidence of the witnesses which have been annexed to the present application. Upon such perusal, according to us, we do not notice any infirmity in the judgment of the trial Court to justify any interference in the appeal against acquittal. Resultantly, there being no merit in the present application, this application is dismissed. Leave refused. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.