1 CriA-402-08.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Mhi CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 402 OF 2008 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2008 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 402 OF 2008 The State of Maharashtra ... Applicant (Orig. Complainant) Versus Hanumant Shrirang Jawale & Anr. ... Respondents (Orig.accused Nos. 1 & 2) CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 30 OF 2008 Shri Satish Rambhau Bande ... Petitioner (Orig.complainant) Vs. Shri Hanumant Shrirang Jawale & Ors. Respndents (Org.accused Nos. 1 & 2) Mr. K.B.Sonwalkar,Advocate, for the applicant. Ms. M.H.Mhatre, APP, for the respondent No.3 - State. (For the applicant in Appln. No.402/2008) CORAM: J.H.BHATIA,J. DATE : 27th July, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard the learned APP as well as the learned Counsel for the revision applicant. 2 CriA-402-08.sxw 2. Criminal Application No.402/2008 is filed by the State seeking leave to prefer an appeal against acquittal of the respondents/accused Nos. 1 and 2 by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge , Baramati, in Sessions Case No. 54/2007 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC. Revision Application is filed by the brother of the deceased challenging the acquittal. 3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Mangal was engaged i with one Santosh Ghorpade and marriage was to be performed on 30.1.2000. However, 3 days before the marriage, she was abducted by PW-2 Ramdas at the instance of accused No.1 and, therefore, her marriage with Santosh Ghorpade could not be performed. Later on, with the mediation of the police, said Mangal was married with accused No.1 on 1.2.2000. Accused no.2 is brother of accused No.1. After marriage, she went to live with her husband. However, she lived there for a few months only and then accused No.1 left her at her parents' place on the ground that he did not have sufficient means to maintain her and he wanted to secure a job at Mumbai. Since then, deceased Mangal was living with her parents. Accused No.1 did not turn up to take her back for 3 - 4 years. Later on, on enquiry, it was found accused No.1 had already married another girl. 3 CriA-402-08.sxw Thereafter, in the year 2005, Mangal filed an application for maintenance under Sec. 125 Cr.P.C. During the pendency of that application, on 21.9.2006, Mangal left the house to attend the Court. However, she did not reach the Court. After search for a couple of days, her dead body was found in the back water of Ujani Dam situated within limits of Bhigwan. On a report lodged by her brother, Satish, who is the revision applicant before this Court, offence under Sec. 306 IPC was registered. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. After trial, the Sessions Court acquitted both the accused holding that the prosecution has failed to prove such a cruelty at the hands of the accused as would lead her to commit suicide. 4. From the facts of the case, it appears that the marriage of the deceased Mangala and the accused No.1 was performed on 1.2.2000 and only for few months they lived together. Admittedly, during the period when she was living with her husband, the relations were cordial. The husband left her at her parents' place apparently on the ground that he wanted to go to Mumbai in search of a job and thereafter he did not turn up for about 3-4 years. Later on, it was revealed that he had already married and maintenance application was also filed. When she committed suicide on 21.9.2006, she was living separately from her husband for about 6 years. Except that the husband had left her at her parents' 4 CriA-402-08.sxw place shortly after the marriage and had not taken care of to take her back or to provide maintenance to her, there is no material to show that he had treated her with cruelty as defined in Sec. 498A. It appears that Mangal committed suicide because of frustration of life and that frustration was because her husband had left her shortly after the marriage and had not taken care of to take her back and to provide maintenance to her. Fact remains that for about six years, they were living separately and during that period of six years, there could not be any cruel treatment at the hands of husband. Taking into consideration these circumstances, merely because she committed suicide within 7 years after marriage, presumption under Sec. 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be raised against the accused. That presumption could be raised only if there would be evidence of cruelty at the hands of the accused, but in absence of such cruelty, the presumption is not available. 5. In view of the above circumstances, I find no substance in the present Application and the Revision Application. For the aforesaid reasons, both the Applications stand dismissed. (J.H.BHATIA,J.)