..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3710 OF 2007 [LEAVE TO APPEAL] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2007 The State of Maharashtra. ..Applicant. Versus Sanjay Raosaheb Pawar and Anr. ..Respondents. .. Mr.Rajesh More, APP, for the Applicant-State. Mr.Sanjay S. Waghmode, Adv. for Jaydeep Mane, Adv. for the Respondents. .. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. DATED : 23rd April, 2008. P.C.: 1. The applicant-State of Maharashtra has filed this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 25th April, 2007 passed by the Adhoc Sessions Judge-1, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.12 of 2007. By the said judgment and order the learned Sessions Judge acquitted the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 & 2 of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 r.w. 34 of IPC. 2. Heard the learned APP for the ..(2).. Applicant-State and the learned Advocate for the respondents-orig.accused Nos.1 & 2. Perused the judgment and order of the learned Magistrate as well as the record in the present case. 3. Respondent No.1 is the husband of the deceased and respondent No.2 is the mother of respondent No.1 and mother-in-law of the deceased. It is the prosecution case that there was demand of Rs.50,000/- and gold chain by the accused persons and as the demand was not met, the deceased was treated with cruelty which caused her to commit suicide. It is pertinent to note that though the prosecution witnesses have stated that there was demand of Rs.50,000/- and gold chain and as the demand was not made the deceased was harassed and ill-treated which led to her to commit suicide, the deceased herself in her dying declaration at Exh.27 has not stated anything about any demand for cash or gold ornament. If at all there had been any demand for money or ornament and ill-treatment and harassment to her, the deceased would have specifically stated about the same in her dying declaration. However, on ..(3).. the other hand the deceased Vijaya has stated that on 26.11.2006 in the morning she had used mishari (tobacco powder) hence her husband had beat her. Thereupon her mother-in-law said that he should not beat her but he should send her to her maternal home. However, her husband did not listen. In the dying declaration, she has further stated that on account of this incident on the next day in the morning she poured kerosene on her body and set herself on fire. 4. As far as using of tobacco powder is concerned, PW-3 Mahadeo, the father of the deceased Vijaya, has specifically admitted in his evidence that he had informed accused No.1 (respondent No.1) not to allow the deceased to use tobacco powder. When the father of the deceased himself had informed accused No.1 that he should not allow the deceased to use tobacco powder, objection by accused No.1 to deceased using tobacco powder cannot be faulted. There is no evidence to show that beating by accused No.1 had caused any injuries to the deceased. The dying declaration does not disclose any harassment to ..(4).. the deceased at the hand of accused No.2. So also the dying declaration does not disclose any demand of cash or gold chain by any of the accused. On the other hand, the dying declaration shows that accused No.1 beat her on the ground of using tobacco powder. The said fact has already been discussed above. The dying declaration does not corroborate the oral evidence of the other witnesses. Moreover, it is seen that there is delay in filing the complaint. The said delay has not been satisfactorily explained.. 5. In this view of the matter, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents-accused. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for. Application for leave to file appeal is rejected. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)