1 cri-appln.5409-10 mgn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.5409 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra ..Applicant Vs. Smt. Lalita Ramdas Pingale ..Respondent. Mr.Y.S.Shinde, APP for the State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. DATED: 25th January, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Shinde, the learned A.P.P. Perused the record and proceedings received in Sessions Case No.374 of 2009 from the Sessions Court at Pune. 2. In Sessions Case No.374 of 2009 two accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Section 342 and 304 read with Section 34 of 2 cri-appln.5409-10 the I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted the accused No.1-Sambhaji Prabhakar Dhore for the offence punishable under Section 304 (2nd Part) and 342 of I.P.C., and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for a period of four years. The accused No.1 also came to be sentenced to suffer R.I. for a period of six months for the offence punishable under Section 342 of I.P.C. However the accused No.2 -Lalita Ramdas Pingale has been acquitted of all the charges and hence this application by the State of Maharashtra for seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of Cr.P.C., against accused No.2. 3. As per the prosecution case deceased Shriram was the husband of P.W.1-Smt.Pranita Shriram Pacharne and had two minor children. The deceased and accused are the residents of the same village and as per P.W.1-Smt.Pranita Shriram Pacharne her deceased husband Shriram was having illicit relationship with accused No.2 from the year 2005 onwards. Accused No.1 is the brother of the accused No.2 and, therefore, on account of the relationship between the deceased and accused No.2 there were disputes which resulted in the incident that took place. On 27th December, 2008 at about 12.30 noon the deceased informed his wife that he was going to Tinhewadi and would return. Accused No.1-Sambhaji was proceeding 3 cri-appln.5409-10 on his motor cycle and was proceeding by road towards Khed and he had threatened to the complainant that he would finish her husband. She came out of her house and saw a mob infront of the house of the accused. She went there and peeped through the window inside the house of the accused which was locked from outside and she saw that her husband was lying in a pool of blood. She, therefore, broke opened the lock of the house and entered the house of the accused No.1. She found injuries on both legs, hands and left shoulder of the deceased and the injuries were bleeding. At that time there was no one around the house of accused No.1 and the accused No.1 came there after the complainant called him. It is alleged by her that she was not allowed to take her husband to hospital by accused No.1 and, therefore, she went to Khed Police Station. The injured was taken to the Rural Hospital at Chandoli, where he was declared dead. She lodged the complaint with the Khed Police Station on the basis of which C.R. No.235/08 came to be registered for the offences under Section 302 and 342 read with Section 34 of I.P.C. The accused came to be arrested and the dead body of Shriram was sent for postmortem. Accused No.2 was granted bail but the accused No.1 continued to be an under trial prisoner. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed that they were implicated 4 cri-appln.5409-10 falsely. The prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses including P.W.2- Dr.Kiran Shan, who conducted the postmortem and signed the postmortem report at Exhibit 35. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and as per the Medical Officer, Shriram died a homicidal death which has been accepted by the trial Court. However, the trial Court did not find any case against accused No.2 and, therefore, she came to be acquitted. Accused No.2 had taken a specific defence that the deceased had molested her in the morning of the date of the incident and with the torn clothes on her person, she went to Khed Police Station to lodge a complaint against him. P.W.2-Dr.Kiran Shan had also examined the accused No.2 and issued the injury certificate. She had also claimed in the complaint to the police that while the deceased was trying to molest her she had forcibly pushed the deceased and immediately she rushed to the Khed Police Station to lodge the report. The house of the accused No.1 as seen by P.W.1 was locked from outside and thus the deceased was found in suspicious condition in the house of accused No.1 and that too with bleeding injuries. C.A., report received by the I.O., indicated that the clothes of accused No.1 were stained with blood and the blood group of deceased Shriram and on the clothes of the accused No.1 was found to be the same i.e. “B” Group. Mr. Shinde, the learned A.P.P., at this stage 5 cri-appln.5409-10 submitted before us that the C.A., report also indicated that the clothes of accused No.2 were also stained with blood. However, the trial Court accepted the defence of accused No.2 that she had sustained injuries in the scuffle with the deceased while defending herself and this has been supported by P.W.2-Dr.Kiran Shan. As per P.W.2-Dr.Kiran Shan the death had occurred at about 20 hours before the postmortem was conducted and the postmortem was held at about 9.00 p.m. on 28th January, 2008. The injuries noticed in Column No.17 of the postmortem report, as per the evidence of P.W.2-Dr.Kiran Shan could have been caused by assault with a hard and blunt object/weapon and the fractures mentioned in Column No.18 could also be caused with such an assault and could be possible with a weapon like the wooden log. The cumulative effect of the injuries in Column Nos.17 and 18 was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of Shriram. The prosecution could not lead any evidence inspiring confidence to connect accused No.2 to the said assault on the deceased. The trial Court accepted the presence of accused No.1 during the assault and attributed the injuries suffered by the deceased to accused No.1. 4. For the reasons stated in the order of acquittal and the evidence considered in detail, in our opinion, the trial Court did not commit any 6 cri-appln.5409-10 error in acquitting the accused No.2 and we do not see any case to reconsider the evidence of prosecution. 5. Hence, leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)