1 Appln 1606-2010 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1606 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra .Applicant V/s. Sanjay Tukaram Kalbhor & ors .Respondents Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh, APP, for the Applicant - State Mr.Balasaheb R. Deshmukh, Advocate, for the Respondents CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 20TH JUNE, 2011 P.C. . Heard the learned Counsel for the respective parties. 2. This is an application for leave to file an appeal against acquittal of the respondents ordered by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, whereby he acquitted the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A & 306 r/w.34 of the IPC. The victim was married to respondent No.1 in the 2 Appln 1606-2010 year June, 1999. She committed suicide on 12th January, 2006. The learned APP submits that there is no evidence about Kerosene being poured on the person of the victim in the year 2005. This piece of information has come from PW-6 Smt.Laxmibai Misal, a neighbour of victim's parents. Victim's parents or brother did not state anything about any such event. The ill treatment which is attributed to the respondent Nos.2 & 3 is all prior to respondent No.1 getting a job with ammunition factory possibly in the year 2003-2004. The victim had given birth to a son in the year 2003. Her father stated that the victim came to his house in the year 2005 and stayed with him for five-six months and also worked in his shop. He wanted that she should not work in the shop but go to her husband. Thus, there is no evidence from victim's own near relations about ill treatment on the part of the respondents. 3 Appln 1606-2010 3. The learned APP vehemently submitted that respondent No.1 had illicit intimacy with one Surekha Lonare and this must have been cause of which led the victim to set herself on fire after such a long time and to commit suicide in the year January, 2006. She submitted that the victim would not have committed suicide if she was not provoked to commit suicide because of the conduct of the respondents. Howsoever reprehensible the conduct of respondent No.1 in developing illicit intimacy with another woman may be as to now, the law does not permit raising a presumption that such illicit intimacy amounts to cruelty as defined under Section 498-A or such conduct amounts to abetment to commit suicide. View taken by the learned Sessions Judge cannot be said to be perverse or calling for an interference. Leave refused. Appeal is dismissed. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)