1 Cri.Appeal No. 309 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.309 OF 2010 Sanjay s/o Bhaurao Gaikwad ..APPELLANT VERSUS Ashok s/o Bhapurao Kolekar & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr Prashant Nagargoje, Advocate holding for Mr P.R. Katneshwarkar for the appellant; Mrs R.K. Ladda, A.P.P. for the respondent no.5 - State; Mr S.J. Salunke, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 18th January, 2011 PER COURT : This is an appeal at the behest of the appellant, who is the original complainant and on whose basis a charge-sheet came to be filed against the present respondents. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the same came to be registered as Sessions Case No.62 of 2009 and Sessions Case No.129 of 2009. The Sessions Judge, Nanded by judgment dated 8.1.2010 acquitted the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 302 read with sec. 34 of the 2 Cri.Appeal No. 309 of 2010 Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution, in support of its case in respect of an offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, examined P.W. 6 Renuka, mother of deceased Suman and P.W.5 Amol, son of deceased Suman and P.W.4 Sanjay, brother of deceased Suman. The Trial Court has very succinctly observed after evaluating the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that the evidence of P.W.4 Sanjay and P.W.6 Renuka was in respect of an assault by the husband of deceased Suman only once on account of the illicit relations between accused Ashok and one Kavita. Apart from that, there does not appear to be any evidence relating to the illtreatment as is contemplated under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In respect of the evidence of P.W.5 Amol, the Trial Court at paragraph 26 has observed that material omissions in respect of the very crux of the prosecution case were brought on record and in the light of that the Trial Court found that no reliance could be placed on the evidence of P.W.5. Amol claimed to be an eye-witness in respect of an offence punishable under section 302 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court has observed at paragraph 31 that the statements of Amol and Vikas came to be recorded on 2.5.2009 i.e. after four months of the incident. The evidence of P.W. 9 Dr. Arvind Kamble discloses that he had not noticed any ante mortem external injury. The two injuries which he had noticed were post mortem injuries. The dead body was in a decomposed state and, therefore, he could not 3 Cri.Appeal No. 309 of 2010 give any opinion as to the cause of death. The prosecution has failed at the very threshold at establishing that deceased Suman had died a homicidal death. In that light of the matter, therefore, the Trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused. 3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Salunke, learned Counsel for respondents no.1 to 4 we have perused the findings recorded by the Trial Court as well as the evidence which has been made available to us from the record and proceedings. Upon such perusal, according to us, the findings recorded by the Trial Court do not suffer any perversity. The view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. Since we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court, according to us, no interference is warranted. The appeal being thus sans merit is summarily dismissed confirming the acquittal of the respondents/accused. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/cria309.10 4 Cri.Appeal No. 309 of 2010