(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Criminal Application No. 3447 of 2010 The State of Maharashtra, .. Applicant Through the PSI, Lohara P.S., (Original District : Osmanabad. complainant) versus 1. Navnath Hiraman Rathod, Age : 22 years, Occupation : Education, R/o. Jewali West Tanda, Taluka : Lohara, District : Osmanabad. 2. Hiraman Devrao Rathod, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. as above. 3. Ratnabai Hiraman Rathod, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. as above. 4. Shrimant Hiraman Rathod, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Labour, R/o. as above. 5. Sanjay Hiraman Rathod, .. Respondents Age : 28 years, (Original accused) Occupation & R/o. as above. (2) ....................... Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the applicant. Respondent nos.1 to 5 served (Absent). ........................ CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2011 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, learned APP, for the applicant / State. 2. None for respondent nos.1 to 5, although served. 3. This is an application preferred by the applicant / State seeking leave to file appeal challenging the judgment and order dated 17-4-2010, rendered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, in Sessions Case No. 7/2009, thereby acquitting the respondents (original accused), for the offences punishable under Section 306, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. (3) 4. I have perused the impugned judgment dated 17-4-2010 and record and proceedings with the assistance of learned APP for the applicant / State. 5. Parties are referred as per their original status i.e. complainant and accused. 6. The prosecution story, in brief, is as follows : The deceased Baby, who was daughter of complainant, namely, Rupchand Pawar, was taking education at Andoor. Accused no.1 Navnath used to follow Baby while going to college and he used to tease her, and he used to say her that he loves her but why she does not speak with him. The said fact was informed by Baby to her parents. Hence, her parents and some other persons including Sitaram Pawar gave understanding to accused, but they did not pay any heed to the same. It is also alleged that on 4-1-2008 at about 4.30 p.m., Baby informed her parents that accused Navnath used to harass her and she was fed up of it. On the same day i.e. on 4-1-2008, said girl committed suicide by getting herself burnt. Hence, the complainant Rupchand i.e. father of deceased Baby lodged report with Police personnel, alleging that her daughter committed suicide due to (4) harassment by accused no.1 and all other accused were encouraging accused no.1 for giving harassment to his daughter. Accordingly, on the basis of the said report, offence came to be registered against the respondents (original accused) under Section 306, read with Section 34 of IPC. 7. The prosecution examined, in all, six witnesses to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, as mentioned below : (1) Rupchand (PW 1) - Father of deceased Baby / complainant. (2) Sitabai (PW 2) - Mother of deceased Baby. (3) Rajendra (PW 3) - Head Constable who performed inquest panchanama over dead body of the victim, as well as, recorded complaint of the complainant. (4) Dagadu Fule (PW 4) - Investigating Officer. (5) Shamsunder (PW 5) - Panch to the spot panchanama and seizure panchanama. (5) (6) Suresh Kale (PW 6) - Who arrested the accused and filed charge sheet. 8. After scrutinizing the evidence on record, learned trial court observed in respect of testimony of Rupchand (PW 1), that it is pertinent to note that inspite of the fact that the complainant and his wife were informed by the deceased about alleged harassment, no report to the Police was lodged. Moreover, even dying declaration of the deceased was not recorded. Moreover, after getting burnt by the deceased, the neighbours must have gathered at the place of incident, and they must have asked deceased the cause of her getting burnt and if it was so, the deceased must have told the reason, but no neighbourer has been examined by the prosecution. It is also observed by the learned trial court, that the complainant stated that Anand Pawar, Sitaram Pawar and Limba Rathod gave understanding to accused, but none of these persons is examined by the prosecution for the reason best known to it. Rupchand (PW 1) and Sitabai (PW 2), being parents of the deceased, are interested witnesses and no independent witness has been examined by the prosecution. Hence, it is further observed by the learned trial court, that the evidence of father of the deceased i.e. complainant is not inspiring confidence since there is nothing in the statement of complainant that accused Navnath (6) gave such harassment as would cause deceased to commit suicide. It is further observed by the learned trial court, that the complainant made statement that accused Navnath used to say his daughter that he loves her and why she does not love him. Besides that, there is no manner of harassment stated before court by the complainant. Hence, it can be hardly believed that if these two sentences are used to any girl, she would commit suicide. Moreover, it is also observed that the words allegedly used by accused no.1 towards deceased for expressing his love, as mentioned in the report at Exhibit 23, and in the deposition, are different. It is simply mentioned in the report that Navnath used to ask the victim why she did not speak with him, and there is no mention in the deposition of Rupchand (PW 1), that accused used to tease her although it is so mentioned in the report. The said observations made by the learned trial court are based upon the evidence before the court and hence same cannot be faulted with. 9. As regards evidence of Sitabai (PW 2) i.e. mother of deceased Baby, learned trial court has observed that her evidence is altogether different than the evidence of complainant Rupchand (PW 1), since the complainant does not say that when understanding was given to accused, his wife was present. In that respect, she has made exaggeration and stated before the (7) court, that accused Hiraman and Ratnabai used to say her daughter that she is a good match as wife to their son and accused Premraj used to call her as Wahini. She also stated that Baby used to inform them about the alleged harassment, but the complainant has not stated such thing before the court. Hence, learned trial court has observed that the evidence of Sitabai (PW 2) does not inspire confidence. Moreover, there are vital omissions in her Police statement and improvement in his testimony regarding her presence while giving understanding to the accused, and since the said observations are also based upon evidence, there is no flaw therein. 10. The defence of the accused is that at the instance of Shankar Tolaram, they are falsely implicated in the present case. Apart from that, as regards harassment, learned trial court has observed that the prosecution has not established that accused no.1 used to give harassment to the deceased and other accused used to encourage accused no.1 in the said act, by leading cogent and convincing evidence before the court. Learned trial court has further observed that the prosecution has failed to establish that by giving alleged harassment, accused intended to infuse idea in the mind of deceased to commit suicide. Hence, learned trial court has observed that there is no sufficient evidence on record to connect link between accused and the (8) crime, and the said observations of the learned trial court cannot be construed as out of place. 11. In the result, after analyzing and appreciating the evidence on record, the view adopted by the learned trial court, while acquitting the accused, is a possible view and the same does not appear to be perverse and the reasoning given therefor also cannot be faulted with, and hence, no interference therein is called for in appellate jurisdiction and, therefore, present application deserves to be rejected. 12. In the result, present Criminal Application which is sans merits, stands dismissed and leave to file appeal is refused. 13. Record and proceedings be sent to concerned court. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/ka3447