(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4166 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra, .. Applicant through Police Station, Ambajogai, (Original complainant) District : Beed. versus 1. Rambhau s/o. Balabhau Bansode, Age : 54 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Krishna Nagar, Parli Vaijanath, Taluka : Parli Vaijanath, District : Beed. 2. Sakhubai w/o. Rambhau Bansode, Age : 40 years, Occupation & R/o. as above. 3. Sakharam s/o. Rambhau Bansode, Age : 26 years, Occupation & R/o. as above. 4. Chatraghuna s/o. Rambhau Bansode, Age : 24 years, Occupation : : Education, R/o. as above. 5. Dattatrya s/o. Rambhau Bansode, Age : 32 years, Occupation : Service, .. Respondents R/o. as above. (Original accused) (2) ....................... Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant. Smt. Priyanka U. Sawji, Advocate, holding for Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate, for respondent nos.1 to 5. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 13TH JUNE 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant / State seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 5th May 2010, rendered by learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Ambajogai, in Sessions Case No. 5/2010, thereby acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 5th May 2010 and also record and proceedings with the assistance of (3) learned Counsel for the parties. 4. The victim Manisha was married with accused no.5 Dattatraya in the year 2005 and after marriage, she went to reside at her matrimonial home which is a joint family residing at Parli Vaijanath. Accused no.1 Rambhau is her father-in-law, whereas accused no.2 Sakhubai is mother-in-law, and accused nos.3 and 4, namely, Sakharam and Chatraghuna, are her brothers-in-law, whereas accused no.5 is her husband. Out of the said wedlock, a female child namely, Tanvi, was born. Victim Manisha committed suicide on 13-5-2007 by hanging herself to a ceiling fan. There are allegations of cruelty and abetment to suicide against the accused persons. The offence came to be registered under C.R. No. 188/2007 on 14-5-2007 at about 22.00 Hours under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused persons. The accused had faced trial for the aforesaid offences in Sessions Case No. 5/2010 and were acquitted by the learned trial court for the said offences. 5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the State has preferred present Criminal Application seeking leave to file appeal. (4) 6. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, prosecution examined as many as four witness, namely, Narayan (PW 1), father of victim; Premala (PW 2), the neighbour; Shashikala (PW 3), the neighbour, and Abdul Sattar Babu Korbu (PW 4), P.S.I. (Investigating Officer). 7. At the outset, although it is alleged that incident took place at about 11.00 a.m. on 14-5-2007, the F.I.R. came to be lodged at about 22.00 Hours on 14-5-2007. Apparently there is delay of about 11 hours in lodging the F.I.R. The explanation given by the prosecution therefor is that Narayan (PW1) was under trauma since his daughter Manisha met with mysterious death, but no details and particulars of trauma were brought on record, and hence, fact remains that there was delay of 11 hours in lodging the F.I.R., which sustains fatal blow to the case of prosecution. 8. Besides that, a suicidal note Exhibit 23 was left by deceased Manisha and contents of the suicidal note are, "Mazya Mrutyacha Doshi Konihi Nahi. Mi Mazya Hatane Marat Aahe". In fact, she had not blamed anybody for her suicidal death. The suicidal note is identified by the father of victim, namely, Narayan (PW 1), that it was in handwriting of deceased Manisha (5) only. Thus, the suicidal note also absolves the accused from alleged charges. 9. There are allegations of demand of plot at Ambajogai from Manisha by the accused persons, but no particulars of date, month and year have been stated by the witnesses in respect of unlawful demand. Although the prosecution has examined two neighbours, namely, Premala (PW 2) and Shashikala (PW 3), learned trial court after assessing their evidence observed that there are only cryptic sentences on the point of harassment. Their evidence does not take the prosecution case further ahead in constructive manner to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. 10. Moreover, after scrutinizing and analyzing evidence on record, learned trial court has observed that deceased Manisha and accused no.5 were residing separately at Ambajogai in a rented house and the husband of Manisha was not equally qualified, and the genitive mother of accused no.5 Dattatraya had expired and his father Rambhau (accused no.1) had performed second marriage with Sakhubai (accused no.2), whereas accused no.3 Sakharam and accused no.4 Chatraghuna were sons of second wife and, therefore, there was no much love and affection of the other accused persons towards accused no.5 Dattatraya. It (6) is also observed by the learned trial court that the prosecution failed to establish series of acts of cruelty at the hands of accused persons to deceased Manisha and no nexus has been established between cruelty and suicide by victim. Moreover, none of the witnesses have given any specific date or time of harassment in their respective testimonies. So also, Investigating Officer Abdul Sattar (PW 4) has stated in his deposition that neighbours have not stated anything about harassment. It is also observed by the learned trial court that Manisha was alone in the intervening night of 13-5-2007 and 14-5-2007. There is no evidence or even suspicion expressed by the prosecution that accused had been to Ambajogai and thereafter event had taken place. The learned trial court has further observed that deceased Manisha might have taken decision of suicide out of frustration. 11. Apparently, the observations made by the learned trial court, after analyzing and assessing the evidence on record, cannot be faulted with. Moreover, there is no cogent and convincing evidence to connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. The view adopted by the learned trial court, after scrutinizing the evidence on record, while acquitting the accused persons, is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse. Apparently, there is no flaw in the view adopted by the learned trial court and hence Criminal Application deserves to be (7) rejected. 12. In the result, Criminal Application is dismissed. Leave for filing appeal against order of acquittal is refused. 13. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4166