:1: appa.1151.11 ata IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1151 OF 2011 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.213 OF 2011 Anil Devlu Chavan ..Applicant Vs. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr. M.V. Koshe and A. Kulkarni i/by Sachin Deokar,for Applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State. CORAM :- V. M. KANADE & A. M. THIPSAY, JJ. DATE :- OCTOBER 13, 2011. P. C.: . Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant and learned APP appearing on behalf of the State. 2 The Applicant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer RI for life. He also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to suffer RI for three years. 3 Prosecution case is that, the Applicant got married with deceased- Pooja about one and half months before the incident in question and one year prior to that an engagement ceremony was performed :2: appa.1151.11 According to the prosecution, the Applicant gave an information to the Police that his wife had committed suicide by hanging herself from an angle which was fixed to the wall with the help of her saree in the said room and he noticed this fact at about 12.30 at night, and immediately informed his parents and neighbours and reported this fact to the Police on the next date in the morning. A case of accidental death was registered and a case of ADR was registered, and thereafter, postmortem was performed. In the postmortem report, the Doctor gave cause of death as “ Asphyxia due to throttling mostly”. Viscera was sent to the chemical analyst. In view of the report given by the Doctor, FIR was registered and the Applicant was arrested. Thereafter,Chargesheet was filed. 4 The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that there was no material on record to indicate that there was any kind of quarrel between the Applicant and the deceased. He further submitted that there was no material on record to indicate that the Applicant had demanded dowry from the in-laws. He, then, submitted that the Doctor,in his cross-examination, had admitted that he was not sure whether the death was caused on account of throttling or on account of suicide by hanging. It was, therefore, submitted that this was a fit case for grant of bail. On the other hand the learned APP :3: appa.1151.11 appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in the report, which was submitted by the Police Officer immediately after the dead body was found, it was stated that there was dust on the iron angle. He submitted that this fact was corroborated by the panch witness, who had prepared spot panchanama and it is also reiterated by the Investigating Officer. It was submitted that therefore, theory of suicide by hanging from the iron angle was falsified. 5 In our view, taking into consideration the evidence of Doctor, who performed postmortem, it appears that the Doctor himself was not very certain whether the death was caused by throttling and therefore, firstly, in the postmortem report he has stated that the cause of death was “Asphyxia due to throttling mostly” and secondly, in his cross- examination he had admitted that the death of deceased could have been caused as a result of hanging . Further, he has stated that he was not sure about the cause of death and had, therefore, consulted one other Doctor. All these facts therefore create an impression that the possibility of the deceased committing suicide cannot be ruled out. There is no material on record to indicate that the Applicant and the deceased had a quarrel either one day prior to the incident or in the past. On the other hand, there is sufficient material on record, which indicates that the parents of the deceased were not happy with the :4: appa.1151.11 daughter, when she married the Applicant. It has also come on record that in fact the Applicant had paid money to the parents of the deceased after they got married. Taking an over all view of the matter, therefore, we are of the view that this is a fit case to grant bail. 6 The Applicant, therefore, directed to be released on bail on execution of P. R. Bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. 7 The Applicant shall report to the concerned Police-station once in a month. ( A. M. THIPSAY, J ) ( V. M. KANADE, J.)