1 cra257.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 257 OF 2008 Dnyaneshwar Karbhari Kurdhane ..APPLICANT -VERSUS- The State of Maharashtra and another ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. G.B. Rajale, advocate for the applicant. Mr. K.J. Ghute-Patil, APP for respondent-State. ..... (CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J) DATED : 29th August, 2011. PER COURT : 1. This Revision is filed to challenge the decision given by the Assistant Sessions Judge-3, Parbhani in Sessions Trial No. 117 of 2006. By the said decision, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Parbhani has acquitted the respondent nos. 2 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The Revision is filed by the brother of the deceased. Copies of the depositions are produced and a copy of the judgment is also produced. Heard the Advocate for the applicant and the APP for the respondent no.1. No notice is issued to the 2 cra257.08 respondents-accused. 3. The deceased was given in marriage to respondent no.2-Ambadas about 12 years prior to the date of incident. Sumitra-wife of the respondent no.2 committed suicide by consuming poison on 06.03.2006. Karbhari, the father of the deceased gave report on the same day to the Police and the crime came to be registered. Before the Trial Court, the mother and maternal uncle were examined as witnesses. The father was dead and so the F.I.R. is proved through a Police Officer. Doctor is examined to prove the cause of death. The Trial Court has come to the conclusion that the death took place due to poisoning. The State has not filed appeal. 4. The entire case is based on the evidence of two witnesses namely; Muktabai i.e. P.W.-3 and Asaram P.W.-4. They have given evidence that the deceased could not conceive the child even after twelve years of the marriage, therefore, the accused persons were giving ill-treatment to Sumitra. They have given evidence that the demand of Rs. 25,000/- was made by the husband and his relatives and on that count also the ill-treatment was given by the husband and the relatives. 3 cra257.08 5. As the death took place after 12 years of marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is not available to the State. The evidence of two witnesses show that nothing is stated as to when the last disclosure was made by the deceased to her parents and two others. The entire case is based on so-called disclosures made by the deceased to the witnesses, which could have been used under Section 32 of the Evidence Act. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it was further necessary for the State to make out the case of abetment as defined in Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of two witnesses is very vague both on ill-treatment and on so called demand made by the husband and the relatives. There is no other evidence to show that Sumitra has committed suicide due to the ill-treatment given by the husband and his relatives. She was issue less even after 12 years of marriage. Her husband married to second wife and husband had one issue on the date of incident. For the second marriage, Sumitra had probably given her consent. Thus, the evidence of two witnesses is vague and there is other probability, which can be considered in favour of the accused. 6. In the circumstances, it can not be said that there is no proper appreciation of evidence or the Trial Court has not considered the evidence at all. Nothing can be achieved by issuing 4 cra257.08 the notice to other side. So the Revision stands dismissed. (T. V. NALAWADE) JUDGE ga s/cra257.08