1 WP : 3427/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2831 OF 2009 Shri Mahadeo alias Madhav.... Petitioner Pralhad Phase Vs. Shri Pramod Dadabhau Godse .... Respondents & Anr. Mr. Shenoy a/w Ms. Lalita Panchakshari for petitioner. Mr. S.R. Borulkar i/by S.M. Shettigar for respondent no.1. Mrs. G.P. Mulekar, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 2nd December, 2011 P.C. 1. The petitioner herein is the original complainant in C.R. No. 128 of 2006 registered with RCF Police Station for the offence punishable under Section 306 and 498-A Indian Penal Code, in connection with the death of his daughter Rupali, 2 WP : 3427/2010 which took place on 17th October 2000. The present petition has been filed by him to challenge correctness and legality of the order dated 3rd March 2008, by which the Sessions Court, allowed the application for discharge by respondent no.1, husband of Rupali. 2. Rupali was married to respondent no.1 more than 8 years prior to the incident. On 16th October 2000, Rupali asked daughter-Radni to bring Durva” for worship. When Radni “ did not listen, she felt annoyed and did not allow her to go out for playing. Radni then called up respondent no.1, who was at the office to complain. On the next day i.e. on 17th October 2000 around 8 pm., respondent no.1 had reprimanded Rupali over the complaint of Radni and later left for his office at 9.15 pm. In the same night, around 12.30 p.m. Radni found that Rupali hanging by ceiling fan. She immediately called up the applicant at office and informed about the incident. The respondent no.1 rushed home and took Rupali to hospital with the help of a neighbour where she was declared dead. The 3 WP : 3427/2010 police in their inquiry did not find anything amiss in the matter. There was also no complaint from any quarter. Therefore death of Rupali was treated as suicide without any further action. 3. More than 4 years thereafter i.e. 29th December 2004, the applicant wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai that there should be an enquiry into the death of his daughter, which according to him was suspicious. In view of the application, enquiry was made, statements of the witnesses were recorded and F.I.R. came to be lodged on 24th May 2006 against respondent no.1. On completion of investigation, the charge sheet was filed and eventually the case was committed to the Sessions Court. 4. Respondent no.1 filed an application for discharge contending that in view of the fact that the marriage of the respondent and Rupali was performed more that 8 years prior to her death, there could be no presumption of abatement of suicide under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. Further 4 WP : 3427/2010 there was no specific allegation of abatement to commit suicide and thirdly there was no allegation of demand of any nature made by respondent no.1 either from Rupali or from the petitioner at any point of time. The incident that took place on 17th October 2000 can hardly be said to be an act of cruelty on the part of respondent no.1. The Sessions Court appreciated the entire record including the statements of witnesses recorded during the course of investigation, to conclude that no offence is disclosed by the material on record. It therefore allowed application for discharge. 5. Mr. Shenoy, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before disposing of the application for discharge, the Sessions Court ought to have issued notice to the petitioner and heard him in the matter. He further submits that the Sessions Court ought to have considered several letters written by the petitioner to the Investigating Officer prior to lodging of the F.I.R. and various authorities. Mr. Shenoy is however unable to point out any material whatsoever on record which 5 WP : 3427/2010 would even remotely suggest that suicide by Rupali was abetted by respondent no.1. The complaint makes vague allegations that Respondent no.1 used to quarrel with Rupali for petty reasons and at times would not talk to her for 8 days. As has been noted by the Sessions Court, there are no allegations of demand or any harassment over demand. The incident of 16th October 2000 is a minor incident which can take place in a normal and healthy family. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)