cran733.10 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 733 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant Versus Shaikh Gani s/o Sk. Mohamadsab and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for applicant-State Mr. Ravindra S. Shinde h/f Mr. Vijay P. Latange, advocate for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 17TH JANUARY, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 This application is filed seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12.11.2009, passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, at Basmatnagar, District Hingoli in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2009, thereby acquitting the respondents herein for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C.. 2 The Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Basmatnagar has stated the prosecution story from para Nos. 2 to 6 in his judgment. Therefore, it is not necessary to reproduce the same in this order. Suffice it to cran733.10 -2- say that after appreciating the evidence brought on record, the learned Judge has acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. 3 Learned A.P.P. submits that the prosecution has examined number of witnesses. The prosecution has placed on record the evidence of prosecution witnesses and more particularly P.W.1 to P.W.4 and thereby convincingly proved the demand of Rs.15,000/- to purchase the bullock cart. Learned A.P.P. also submits that though the defence was taken by the accused-respondents that already they are having one bullock cart, he however submits that they wanted another bullock cart for business purpose. Learned A.P.P. also invited my attention to evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W.4 and also other evidence which is placed on record by the prosecution. Learned A.P.P. further submitted that there was no reason for the deceased to commit suicide unless there was such demand. Learned A.P.P. further submits that the marriage between respondent No.1 and deceased was solemnized in the year 2006 and therefore, the death is caused within a period of seven years from the date of marriage. Therefore, learned A.P.P. would submit that this Court may allow this application. 4 Learned counsel for the respondents invited my attention to the findings recorded by the court below and submitted that the cran733.10 -3- prosecution story that there was demand of Rs.15,000/- by the accused persons for purchase of bullock cart has been rejected by the learned Sessions Court by assigning convincing reasons. Counsel further submitted that the bullock cart was already possessed by the respondents and therefor, there was no question of demanding bullock cart. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the fact that during trial accused No.1 was in jail from 9.6.2008 till 12.11.2009. Counsel would submit that taking into consideration entire evidence brought on record, the court below has passed appropriate order thereby acquitting the respondents, therefore, this court may not interfere with the order of acquittal. 5 Upon hearing learned A.P.P. and learned counsel for the respondents, upon perusal of the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Court and the record and proceedings made available, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to convincingly prove that there was demand of Rs.15,000/- to purchase the bullock cart. Upon appreciation of evidence of the brother of deceased, more particularly referring to his cross examination, the trial court has recorded a finding that in the evidence of this witness it has come on record that the accused are already possessing a bullock cart prior to the date of incident. That apart, the defence taken by the accused persons has been accepted by the trial court is possible cran733.10 -4- defence. The provisions of Section 498-A, reads thus:- “498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a women subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means- (a) any willful conduct which is of a such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Upon perusal of explanation (a) it is clear that unless the prosecution is able to prove that any willful conduct which is of a such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman, the person facing trial cannot be convicted for cran733.10 -5- Section 306 of I.P.C. In this case, as stated herein above, the prosecution has failed to establish its case. As stated herein above, the prosecution has failed to establish its case under Section 498-A of I.P.C. As a result, the further prosecution case that the respondents have committed offence punishable under Section 306 should fail. Therefore, it is also relevant to mention that before the date of incident there is no any offence registered by the complainant or by the deceased or any other relative for cruel treatment against the respondents herein. 6 Therefore, taking over all view of the matter, in my opinion, it would not be safe to upset the order of acquittal. The learned Sessions Court has given benefit of doubt since the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, no case is made out to entertain this application. This application stands dismissed. Registration of appeal is refused. Record and proceeding be sent back forthwith to the concerned Court. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/