1 appln2530.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2530 OF 2010 In CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 The State of Maharshtra : Applicant (Orig.Complainant) V/s. Athar Tahir Ansari & Ors. : Respondents (Orig.Accused nos.1 to 4) .... Mr.Y.S.Shinde, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.P.BHANGALE,JJ. DATE : SEPTEMBER 30, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for the applicant. 2. This Criminal Application is filed by the State seeking leave to appeal challenging the judgement and order of acquittal passed by the trial Court whereby all the respondents are acquitted for the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also under sections 498-A, 201 and 406 of the I.P.C., except the respondent no.1. 2 appln2530.10 3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor and perused the judgement. In paragraph 20 of the judgement, the trial Court has observed that the prosecution has examined Farzana Begum, Abidali and Afsana, they are the mother, father and sister, respectively, of the deceased. In their evidence, none of them has stated that at the time when the dead body of Rehana was exhumed, any of them was present in the grave-yard. At the time when the dead body was taken out from the grave-yard, panchanama (exh.68) was drawn on 22.3.2005. P.W.8 Shaikh Ahmed Shaikh Mohammod was the witness examined by the prosecution to prove the said panchanama, who has stated that the dead body of a female was exhumed from Kabrastan and, at that time, two Doctors, one Police Officer, one labourer and the Executive Magistrate were the only persons present. The trial Court has further observed that there is nothing in his evidence to show that anybody from the matrimonial or parental family of deceased Rehana was present there. In cross-examination, the witness has admitted that there was no specific identification mark on the grave from where the dead body was exhumed. Even Police Inspector Mr.Patel who claimed to be present at the time when the dead body of a female was exhumed admitted that nobody from either side of the family was present at the 3 appln2530.10 time when the dead body of Rehana was exhumed. Nobody identified the dead body which was exhumed was that of deceased Rehana. The Investigating Officer has not even deposed about the presence of the Doctors and P.W.8 Shaikh Mohammod at the relevant time in the Kabrastan. It was further observed that there was no specific identification mark so as to show that the dead body was that of deceased Rehana. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution of Farzana Begum, Abidali, Afsana, Subedar Sharma and Hanuman Yadav came to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving that the accused no.1 Athar was treating his wife with cruelty and the prosecution, therefore, succeeded in bringing home the guilt for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the prosecution failed to prove the offence against all the accused under sections 302, 201 and 406 of the Indian Penal Code and also against accused nos.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under section 498A read with 34 of the I.P.C. 5. Taking into consideration the overall view of the evidence available on record and the findings recorded by the trial Court, we are of the view that no case is made out for showing any indulgence. Leave 4 appln2530.10 refused. 6. Criminal Application stands dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A.P. BHANGALE,J.)