1 criapl-200-93 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200 OF 1993 The State of Maharashtra appellant-complainant versus 1. Ganpat Kondiba Shidam age 22 years, resident of Ganeshnagar, now at Mandvi, Taluka Kinwant. 2. Marubai w/o Kondiba Sidam, age 45 years, resident of Ganeshpur, now at Mandvi, Taluka Kinwant, Dist. Nanded. respondents-accused. --------- Smt. S.D. Shelke, A.P.P. for the appellant. None for the respondents-accused. --------- Coram: A. H. Joshi and A. R. Joshi, JJ. Date : September 7, 2011. Judgment : ( Per: A.H. Joshi, J. ) 1. This is an appeal by the State against acquittal recorded by the learned Sessions Judge, Nanded, on 22.1.1993, in Sessions Case No. 256 of 1991. 2. The accused were tried for commission of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The cause of death of victim Kiran is asphyxia due to strangulation. Although prosecution has examined 7 witnesses, the case proceeds entirely on the evidence of three witnesses, namely, 2 criapl-200-93 (1) PW-1 Vimal, who is the neighbour. (2) PW-2 Laxmibai, who is mother of deceased. (3) PW-3 Vijaya, sister of the deceased. 4. Perusal of evidence of these witnesses reveals that Vimal is a neighbour and independent and material witness. In her testimony, PW-1 has narrated as to her knowledge regarding ill-treatment to the deceased, which, in her own words, reads :- " Kiran was complaining that her husband and mother in-law were ill treating and harassing her. She further told me that they were not giving food to her. At that occasion, Kiran stayed in her parents' house for about-1 month or 1.1.4 month and she again came on the day of Raksha Bandhan, Kiran told me that her husband asked for to bring T.C. and certain amount from her parents. Kiran studied upto Matriculation. Kiran further told me that her husband was persuading to bring T.C. as he wanted to keep her away from him on the guise of service. The accused 1 was telling to Kiran that he had affection of another girl by name Kamal. Deceased Kiran also told me that her husband gave threats to do away her in case she did not bring amount from her parents. " (quoted from para 1 of deposition of PW-1 at page 42-43 of paperbook) 5. Insofar as testimonies of PW Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned, their version is liable to be rejected, being hearsay. 6. Perusal of evidence of PW-1, relevant part of which is quoted earlier also unquestionably discloses that her statement is based on what was told to her by the deceased, and it being not a circumstance as to cause of death, 3 criapl-200-93 is not admissible. Thus, evidence of PW-1 is hearsay and, hence, not admissible. 7. In the aforesaid background, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned judgment which is based on material on record. 8. The appeal has no merits. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (A. R. JOSHI, J.) (A. H. JOSHI, J.) pnd/criapl-200-93