* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1552 OF 2009 (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 (AGAINST THE ORDER OF ACQUITTAL) The State of Maharashtra ..... Applicant/Orig.Complainant vs. Ganesh Ramesh Pardeshi & Ors. ..... Respondents/Orig.Accused nos.1 to 4. Mr. J.P.Kharge, APP for State-applicant Ms.Sharmila Kaushik,adv.for respondents no.1 to 4. CORAM : SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED : 17TH AUGUST, 2009. PC : 1. Heard counsels for both sides. 2. This application is filed by the State seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court, Pune on 12th December, 2008 acquitting the respondents of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 424, 306 read with Section 34 IPC. It may be mentioned at the outset that the learned APP concedes in fairness that there is no evidence whatsoever against respondents no.2 to 4. Therefore, their acquittal in the case cannot be * 2 * questioned. 3. Respondent no.1 disputes that he was married to deceased Medha. The prosecution has not brought any evidence of marriage on record except for the word of P.W.no.1 and P.W.no.3 who are the parents of deceased Medha. The record shows that there were serious differences between Medha and her parents and as such there was no communication between them. P.W.no.1, the father has admitted in his cross- examination that none of the family members were present at the time of marriage. He does not know the date of the marriage. He has not seen any photographs of the marriage. He did not know that Medha had delivered a child and he was even unable to state the date on which Medha had left the house. It was suggested to the parents of Medha in the cross-examination that Medha had left the house much earlier and had been residing separately. She was taking education on her own. Though the suggestions have been denied by the parents, it is surprising that the parents are not aware of several personal details of Medha. Undisputedly, Medha was not residing with respondent no.1. She was residing with P.W.no.2 whose evidence is that respondent no.1 used to visit her occasionally. 4. It is the evidence of P.W.No.2 that on the date of incident when respondent no.1 had gone to meet Medha, she ran out of the house and jumped into the well. Respondent no.1 after shouting for help also jumped into the well to rescue Medha. Because, it was dark, he was unable to save her. Respondent no.1 was later rescued by the people of the villages with the help of a rope. * 3 * 5. It is the evidence of P.W.no.1 and P.W.no.3 that some days after the marriage, Medha started demanding money from P.W.no.1 saying that there is demand of money by respondent no.1. She used to call her father either to Pune Municipal Corporation or Pune Railway station where her father would meet her and give the money. The father has not given any particulars of payment, whether of the number of payments or the quantum of payments or of the places where it was made. In the absence of these particulars on the background of the facts that the parents were opposed to the relationship of Medha with respondent no.1 and that they were not in talking terms with Medha, it is difficult to accept their word of payment being demanded and made. It has also been brought on record through cross-examination of these two witnesses that allegations as regards the payment of money and the harassment for non-payment have been stated for the first time during the deposition and these facts were not stated to the police when the statement of P.W.no.1 and P.W.no.3 was recorded during the course of investigation. With hardly any evidence on record to prove the allegations against the respondent, the only argument that has now been advanced by the learned APP is the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act available against respondent no.1. It is argued that no satisfactory explanation is given by the accused to rebut the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Firstly, it is seen that the marriage is not established. Secondly, the learned Judge has rightly held that there must be some foundation laid down to hold the presumption. From the evidence of P.W.no.1 and * 4 * P.W.no.3 it is obvious that there is no foundation laid to hold the presumption. In these circumstances, the inference drawn by the learned trial judge is correct and legal. Hence, the application for leave to file appeal is rejected. 6. With the rejection of leave to file appeal, the appeal also stands dismissed. [SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J.]