1 Cri.appln.4766 of 2009 hvn IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4766 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant Versus Dhanayya Sidramayya Hiremath and Ors.... Respondents Mrs. A.A. Mane, A.P.P. for Applicant. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J. DATED : DECEMBER 03, 2010 P.C. 1. This is an application for leave to file appeal by the State from the Judgment order dated 30th June, 2009 passed by the Sessions Court, Pune in Sessions Case No. 856 of 2008 acquitting respondents of the offences punishable under section 498A and 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. A brief case of the prosecution is that on 14th June, 2008, Yerawada Police Station received an information that one Archana Hiremath was admitted to Sassoon Hospital, Pune with burn injuries. P.W. 2 then went to Sassoon Hospital and after complying with necessary formalities recorded Archana's statement. She succumbed to the burn injuries on 17th June, 2008. Almost a month 2 Cri.appln.4766 of 2009 thereafter i.e. on 10th July, 2008, P.W. 1, Malsidaya Dhanayya Hiremath, father of Archana filed a complaint with Yerawada Police Station against the husband of Archana, her mother in law and her brothers in law for commission of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. In the complaint he stated that at the time of marriage of Archana in the year 1994, dowry of sum of Rs.50,000/- had been paid to husband. Archana had been residing with her husband and two children at Pune. The other accused persons i.e. mother and brothers in law are residents of Shelgi in District Solapur. For the period of three years after the marriage, Archana had cordial relations but thereafter her husband started demanding money from her in order to discharge liability of loan. P.W. 1 claims to have obtained loan of Rs. 20,000/- from his friend and paid the amount to the husband of Archana. It was also alleged in the complaint that husband was addicted to liquor and was not attending to his service regularly. As regards the other accused persons he alleged that they used to harass Archana and instigate her husband against her. 2. During the trial, prosecution examined the complainant P.W. 1, police constable Pralhad Holkar P.W. 2 who recorded statement of 3 Cri.appln.4766 of 2009 Archana, two medical officers i.e. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 and the Investigating Officer. On appreciation of evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the complaint made by P.W. 1 as well as his evidence was vague and lacking in necessary particulars in all respects as regards the demand of dowry and the harassment for non-fulfillment of it by the family members of the husband. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had failed to make out any case against the family of husband of Archana. 3. As regards the husband, the trial court found that the only allegation that can be stated to have been proved against the husband was that he was addicted to alcohol and not attending to his service properly. There are no other allegations made against the husband. The Sessions court relying upon the decision of this court in Bhagwan Sakharam Said Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2002 (Cri. Supp.) Bom. C.R. 420 held that every harassment would not amount to cruelty within meaning of section 498A. The cruelty alleged against the husband was not of such type that it would force a person to commit suicide. The Sessions Judge also took a note of the delay in filing the F.I.R. by P.W. 1. It was held that the delay 4 Cri.appln.4766 of 2009 of more than 25 days was inordinate and created doubt about the genuineness of the allegations. 4. It is clear from the impugned judgment that there was hardly any evidence brought forth by the prosecution to bring home the guilt of respondents. Therefore, the Sessions Judg rightly acquitted all the accused persons. There is no merit whatsoever in challenge to impugned judgment and order. Hence, application for leave is dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA,J.)