1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.56/2009 (Shri Vinod Choudhary ..V/s.. Sanjay Palaskar +5) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ms. Sandhya Maniyar Advocate h/f. Mr Firdos Mirza, Advocate for applicant. Mr. A.S. Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 5. Mr. D.B. Yengal, A.P.P. for State – respondent no.6. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 15 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. Respondent no.1 to 5 faced Sessions Trial No.51 of 2007 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana under sections 498-A, 306 R/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana by judgment and order dated 20/6/2008 acquitted the respondent no.1 to 5 of charges under section 306, 498-A R/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard learned Advocates for the parties. Kalpana happens to be the wife of respondent no.1 and she said to have committed suicide on 24th October 2006. Her dead body was found in the well. In the Course of the trial prosecution has examined P.W.1 Vinod Choudhary (brother of the deceased), P.W.2 Jagnnath Choudhary (father of the deceased), P.W.3 Mrs. Meena 2 Ukalkar (sister of the deceased) and P.W.4 Dr. Ganpat Darde who had conducted postmortem. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after having considered the entire record came to the conclusion that the three witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution have not been able to prove the cruelty inflicted upon said Kalpana by respondent no.1 to 5 in a manner beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence appearing on record and has rightly acquitted the respondents. It was tried to be argued by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that after birth of a child demand for moneys to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- was made and for that cruelty was inflicted. So far as this aspect is concerned the evidence of these witnesses is not very clear and convincing. The learned Judge has given reason to discard the evidence of said witnesses being the relatives of the of the deceased. After having gone through the said evidence it is not possible to come to a different conclusion whatsoever arrived by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. In view of the fact that the proper reasons have been recorded by the learned Judge no interference is called for in the impugned judgment. The petition is required to be dismissed at the stage of admission. The same is dismissed at the stage of admission accordingly. JUDGE Tambaskar