1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.840 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra APPELLANT VERSUS Rahul S/o.Ramrao Sondare and others RESPONDENTS Mr.K.S.Patil, learned A.P.P. for appellant State. Mr.M.K.Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent no.1 to 3 and 5 to 6 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 22/11/2010 PER COURT : 1. This is an application filed by the appellant State challenging the judgment of the Assistant Sessions Judge, Kandhar, dated 08/10/2009, in Sessions Case No.26/2007, acquitting the respondents herein of offences punishable u/s. 498-A, 304-B, and 306 of the IPC. 2. The prosecution has alleged that Laxmibai, daughter of P.W.No. 6 Laxman and P.W.No.7 Jijabai was married to respondent no.1 and after marriage, the accused were demanding Rs.25,000/- for the construction of the house and on failure of Laxmibai to pay the 2 aforesaid amount, Laxmibai was treated with cruelty. The prosecution has also alleged that Laxmibai had committed suicide by consumption of poison and accordingly on the basis of the report, an offence punishable u/s. 304-B, 306, 498-A of The IPC came to be registered. 3. As per paragraph 27 of the judgment, it reveals that the report of the Chemical Analyser in respect of viscera at Exh.57 clearly indicates that no poison was detected. The Medical Officer had opined that Laxmibai had died as a result of Cardio Pulmonary Arrest due to consumption of poison. In the absence of any evidence to indicate that Laxmibai had consumed poison, the report of the Medical Officer is of no consequence. Thus according to us, the prosecution has failed at the threshold in establishing that the death of Laxmibai was an un-natural death. In the absence of detection of poison, the only inference which is possible is that Laxmibai had died of natural death i.e. on account of Cardio Pulmonary Arrest. Thus the offence punishable u/s. 306 and 304-B of The IPC do not survive for consideration. In respect of offence punishable u/s. 498-A of The IPC, prosecution mainly relies upon the testimony of P.W.No.4 Anil brother of deceased Laxmibai, P.W.No.6 Laxman and P.W.No.7 Jijabai, parents of Laxmibai. According to Anil, the demand for Rs. 25,000/- was made in the presence of P.W.No.6 Laxman. P.W.No.6 states that the demand of Rs.25,000/- was made to P.W.No.4 Anil. P.W.No.7 Jijabai states that the demand for Rs.25,000/- was made by accused no.1 to P.W.No.6 Laxman. Apart from the discrepancy, we 3 find that the evidence of these prosecution witnesses is omni-bus in respect of the demand as well as in respect of the illtreatment. No instances of illtreatment are given and mere vague allegations are made that Laxmibai was illtreated. The Trial Court has given reasons as to why the Trial Court felt that no reliance could be placed upon the prosecution's evidence. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. We have also perused the evidence recorded by the Trial Court. Upon such perusal, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. We do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. Consequently, there being no merit in the present application, this application is dismissed. Leave refused. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/NOV. 2010/cri.appl.840-10