(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 4499 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Officer, .. Applicant Police Station, Bhokar, (Original District : Nanded. complainant) versus 1. Nagbhushan s/o. Narsimlu Panchal, Age : 20 years, Occupation : Carpenter. 2. Chandrakala w/o. Narsimlu Panchal, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Household. All R/o. Kini, Taluka : Bhokar, District : Nanded. 3. Sheshabai @ Sheshakalabai w/o. Atmaram Patewar, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Kharbi, Taluka : Bhokar, District : Nanded. 4. Padmawati w/o. Ramesh Panchal, .. Respondents Age : 30 years, (Original accused Occupation : Household, nos.1, 3 to 5) R/o. Awarala, Taluka : Naigaon, District : Nanded. (2) ....................... Mr. B.V. Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant. Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate, for respondents. ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 13TH JULY 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant / State seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 12th May 2010, rendered by the learned Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge-3, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 202/2009, thereby acquitting the respondents (original accused) for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused the impugned judgment, and also perused the Record & Proceedings with the assistance of the learned Counsel for parties. (3) 4. The facts, in brief, as in the prosecution case are as follows : It is alleged that deceased Anusaya was married with accused no.1 Nagbhushan about 10 years back, and since accused no.2 Narsimlu expired, case against him was abated, whereas accused no.3, is mother-in-law of the victim and accused nos.4 and 5 are sisters-in-law of deceased Anusaya. Accused persons faced the trial for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, read with Section 34 of IPC, on the accusations that they in furtherance of their common intention, subjected to deceased Anusaya with cruelty, harassment and illtreatment on account of demand of Rs. 25,000/- prior to 25-3-2009 and also for abetting the commission of suicide by the said victim due to subjecting her with harassment and illtreatment in furtherance of their common intention. 5. The prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused. However, learned trial court after assessing the evidence, observed that the prosecution witnesses have not given the particulars of alleged demand of unlawful amount from deceased Anusaya, and no date, month and year have been stated in that (4) respect by the said witnesses, as well as, the prosecution witnesses are silent in respect of the particulars about the alleged illtreatment and cruelty to which victim Anusaya was allegedly met with, at the hands of the accused. Learned trial court has also observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the consistency in the evidence beyond reasonable doubt, that accused no.1 had illtreated and harassed the deceased on account of unlawful amount, as well as, date, month and year of payment of money and arrangement of money are not proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, learned trial court observed that the prosecution evidence is not sufficient to prove the case against the accused persons. It is further observed that there is no evidence to connect death of the deceased with illtreatment and harassment, and there is no nexus established by the prosecution between the alleged harassment by the accused and committal of suicide by the deceased, and considering the totality of the evidence, observations made by the learned trial court, apparently, cannot be faulted with. 6. In the circumstances, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, is a possible view and same does not appear to be perverse, and apparently, there is no flaw therein, and hence, present application bears no (5) substance and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction, and the present application deserves to be rejected. 7. In the result, present Criminal Application bears no substance and having devoid of merits, same stands dismissed, and leave to file appeal is refused. 8. Record and Proceedings be sent back to the concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka4499