IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1133 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra .. Applicant Versus Sau.Shalan Kumar Nikam & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.Y.S.Shinde, A.P.P for the applicant. Mr.Sudatta Patil for the respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 29th January 2009. : 29th January 2009. : 29th January 2009. P.C.: . Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. This is an application under sub section 3 of section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Leave is sought to prefer an appeal for challenging the judgment and order dated 17th September 2007 passed by the Sessions Court by which the respondents have been acquitted of the offences punishable under section 306 and section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The learned A.P.P appearing for the applicant has invited my attention to the evidence of the (2) prosecution witnesses and findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. He submitted that there is sufficient evidence on record to show that continuously there was a demand of Rs.20,000/- by the respondents-accused and as the said illegal demand was made met, the respondents harassed the deceased Rupali. He submitted that it has been established that deceased Rupali committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her own person. He submitted that the impugned order is perverse. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the impugned judgment and order. 3. The case of the prosecution is that deceased Rupali married to the 5th respondent Deepak in August 2000. Five to six months after the marriage the respondents started ill-treating the deceased. According to the case of the prosecution, the respondents demanded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for opening a new shop for the respondent No.5. However, the father of the deceased could not satisfy the said demand and therefore the victim was subjected to harassment which ultimately led to the victim pouring kerosene on her own person and setting herself on fire. (3) 4. The date of the incident of suicide is 03rd May 2007. The incident took place in the house of the respondents. The prosecution witnesses, namely, P.W.No.5 Vilas (uncle of the victim), P.W.No.6 Deepali (sister of the deceased), P.W.No.7 Anita (aunt of the deceased) and P.W.No.9 Prakash (father of the deceased) deposed about the alleged physical and mental torture caused to the deceased by the respondents. P.W.No.5 deposed that the respondent No.3 (brother-in-law of the deceased) demanded sum of Rs.20,000/- to him for the purposes of opening a new shop for respondent no.5. According to the said witness he disclosed the said fact to P.W.No.9 in presence of P.W.No.6. P.W.No.5 stated that P.W.No.9 could not fulfil the demand on account of poverty. The case made out by the P.W.No.5 and other witnesses is that the mother-in-law of the deceased (1st respondent) demanded two and half tola of gold and clothes for the respondent No.5. 5. The post mortem notes show that the deceased suffered from 100% burn injuries. As it happens normally in such cases, there is no eye-witness to the incident of the deceased committing suicide. (4) 6. Perusal of the evidence of P.W.No.5 Vilas shows that demand of Rs.20,000/- was made by the accused No.3 to him for the purposes of opening a shop for accused No.5. According to him when he disclosed this fact to P.W.No.9 (father of the victim) in presence of P.W.No.6 Deepali, P.W.No.9 had given promise to pay the said amount. He could not fulfil the said demand. P.W.No.6 Deepali deposed that the accused No.1 had demanded two and half tola of gold and clothes for respondent No.5. These two witnesses deposed that the accused persons did not provide food, clothing and other essentials to the deceased and caused her physical and mental harassment. P.W.No.5 in the cross examination admitted that he had not made any complaint to the police regarding payment of Rs.20,000/- by the accused and harassment caused to the victim by the accused. It must be noted here that the witness admitted that though he had stated before the police about demand of Rs.20,000/- made by the accused persons, the said fact is not mentioned in his statement recorded by the police. He admitted that in the statement recorded by the police it is not mentioned that he disclosed the fact of demand to P.W.No.9 in presence of P.W.No.6. He also admitted that though he had stated before the Court that the accused were (5) beating the deceased and were keeping her without food, this fact is not recorded in his statement before the police. 7. P.W.No.6 admitted in the cross examination that she was not present in the house of the accused when a demand of Rs.20,000/- was made by the accused to P.W.No.5. Thus, the version of P.W.No.6 that there was a demand of sum of Rs.20,000/- is nothing but hearsay evidence. It must be noted here that on the date of the incident, the said witness was admittedly a 10th standard student. 8. P.W.No.9 (father of the deceased) also deposed about the demand of Rs.20,000/- and alleged ill-treatment to his daughter. He admitted that after cremation of his daughter he alongwith his other relatives proceeded to his village by the road and Vathar police station is on the said road. He stated that at that time he did not lodge any complaint. He admitted that the accused No.2 was a resident of Bombay. He admitted that at the time of lodging the complaint he did not state that initially for 4 to 5 months, the accused treated Rupali properly. He stated that he did (6) not disclose in the complaint that at the time of Diwali, deceased Rupali told him about the ill-treatment at the hands of accused. He admitted that it was not mentioned in his statement recorded by the police that the respondents used to keep her hungry and they were not providing clothes to the deceased. In the cross examination he admitted that on 03rd May 2004 he had been to Vathar police station for recording the complaint but the complaint was not taken. Thereafter, he went to village Pimawade Budruk where funeral was performed. He stated that 10 to 12 relatives including his brothers and sisters were already in the village when he reached there. In the examination-in-chief he stated that after funeral he did not lodge complaint and came back to his house as at the relevant time he was under mental shock. It must be noted here that according to the version of P.W.No.9 before reaching the village for funeral of the deceased, he had visited Vathar police station. It is an admitted position that after attending the funeral on the way to his village there was Vathar police station but he did not lodge any complaint. He admitted that when his statement was subsequently recorded by the police, he did not disclose that earlier he did not file complaint as he was under a (7) mental shock. It must be noted here that the prosecution has not examined any other witness such as neighbours residing in the vicinity of the matrimonial house of the deceased. Perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses shows that the specific allegation of demand is against accused Nos.1 to 3. As far as harassment of the deceased is concerned, the allegations are very vague without attributing any specific role to any of the accused. 10. Considering the aforesaid factual aspects, the conclusion recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the guilt of the accused is not established is certainly a possible conclusion drawn on the basis of evidence on record. In the circumstances, no case is made out for grant of bail. Application is accordingly rejected. (A.S.Oka,J)