1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1840/2010 The State of Maharashtra Applicant. V E R S U S Limbraj Sambhaji Disale and others. Respondents. Mr. S. D. Kaldate, Learned APP for Applicant - State. CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard Mr. Kaldate learned Assistant Public Prosecutor for the applicant – state. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state seeking leave to file appeal against judgment and order dated 25.1.2010 passed by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in S.C.No.69/2008 acquitting the respondents for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 306 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3- I have gone through the impugned judgment of acquittal with the assistance of learned APP. Apparently victim namely Rani was married 2 with the accused No.1 Limbraj about five years back from the date of incident but she could not conceive a child and there are allegations that she was subjected to cruelty and ill treatment by the respondents herein as well as unlawful demand of Rs.25,000/- was made to her to be brought by her from her parents for medical treatment. Ultimately victim Rani jumped into the well and committed suicide on 9.1.2008. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses to substantiate the charges leveled against the respondents (original accused) i.e. PW 1 Ganpati Naiknaware father of the victim, PW 2 Kamalbai Naiknaware mother of the victim, PW 3 Raosaheb cousin brother of the complainant and PW 4 Sambhaji Dhumale Investigating Officer. 4- It is significant to note that although incident of suicide took place on 9.1.2008 the complaint came to be lodged after a period of 6 days i.e. on 15.01.2008 and prosecution has failed to explain the said delay of 6 days which is fatal to the case of the prosecution. Moreover prosecution has not examined any other independent witness except the aforesaid witnesses to substantiate the charges leveled against the respondents herein. Moreover PW 3 Raosaheb cousin brother of the complainant apparently was not aware about ill-treatment/harassment caused by accused person to victim and apparently his statement was recorded only to support the case of the prosecution by the police. Although presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act is attracted against the respondents since victim Rani committed suicide within span of five years after marriage, apparently there is no 3 clinching cogent evidence against respondents to connect them with the alleged crime. 5- Besides that view adopted by the learned trial judge does not appear to be perverse which was taken after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record. Moreover, it also appears that view adopted by learned judge is a possible view to be taken after appreciating the evidence on record and therefore no interference is warranted therein in the appellate jurisdiction. In the result application is devoid of substance and therefore same stands dismissed and leave to file appeal stands refused. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) ..... aaa/1840.10