APPLN/163/2011 1 Dixit IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.163 OF 2011 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant V/s. Jamir Gulab Shaikh & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. H.J. Dedhia, APP, for the Applicant-State of Maharashtra. None for the Respondents. CORAM : B. H. MARLAPALLE & A.M. THIPSAY, J.J. DATE : 25 TH APRIL, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard Mr. Dedhia, the learned APP for the applicant-State of Maharashtra. This application filed by the State of Maharashtra seeks leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. against the order of acquittal passed on 15th December, 2010 in Sessions Case No.95 of 2009 by the learned Sessions Judge at Sangli. 2. In all five accused came to be tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. As per the prosecution case, the daughter of the complainant Shahida Allabaksh Mulani (PW-1) and by name ‘Yasmin’ was married on 4th May, 2003 with accused No.1- Jamir Gulab Shaikh and she be got two children from the said wedlock. On 17th February, 2009, she committed suicide by hanging herself in her matrimonial home. On receiving the news, the complainant as well as her husband went to the house of the accused and thereafter to the hospital where the dead body of Yasmin was taken. Inquest Panchnama (Exhibit-17) was recorded in presence of the complainant and after that the post mortem was done (PM Notes at APPLN/163/2011 2 Dixit Exhibit-20). The dead body was handed over to the complainant. However, on 18th February, 2009, PW-1 who was the mother of the deceased went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint (Exhibit-27) alleging that there was ill treatment to Yasmin at the hands of the accused and that was the cause for her committing suicide. 3. The prosecution examined in all three witnesses i.e. PW-1 Shahida Allabaksh Mulani, PW-2 Allauddin Mulani and PW-3 Vishwas Lokare, the Investigating Officer. 4. At the first instance it was noted that there was no complaint on record about the demand of dowry or ill treatment on the ground of dowry and this was conceded by the learned APP. Consequently, the trial Court rightly recorded that the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act would not arise. The only question that was examined by the trial Court was whether there was any ill treatment to the deceased by the accused at any time so as to prove the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC and whether the accused abetted the commission of suicide by Yasmin. 5. The learned APP has placed before us the oral deposition copies of all the three witnesses. It has been admitted in the evidence of PW-1 that accused No.4 is her sister and another sister by name Shabira was residing in front of the house of the accused. The accused are financially well off. They have constructed a new house, purchased a car and there are some electrical appliances fitted in the house as well. The deceased was married to accused No.1 for about six years and admittedly there was no complaint at any time made by PW-1 and PW-2 against the alleged ill treatment to the deceased. The sister (Shabira) who was residing in front of the accused was not examined as a prosecution witness. Even when the Police had gone to record Inquest Panchnama as well as the Spot Panchnama, APPLN/163/2011 3 Dixit PW-1 and PW-2 were present and they had no complaint regarding the ill treatment by the accused to the deceased. 6. In our opinion, the trial Court has rightly considered the evidence of both these witnesses and recorded the finding that the allegations of ill treatment or abetment to commit suicide could not be proved by the prosecution. We are, therefore, satisfied that the evidence, as considered by the trial Court, does not require reconsideration at our hands. 7. Hence, leave to appeal is refused and the application is rejected. [A.M. THIPSAY, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]