1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 228 OF 2004 Snehalata Dattaram Mithbavkar ...Petitioner Versus Inspector General of Police, Maharashtra State, & Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Smita Gaidhavi for the Petitioner Mrs. U.V. Kejariwal, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State. CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and A.P.DESHPANDE,J. DATE: MARCH 31, 2008 P.C.:- Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. This is a Writ Petition filed by the mother of a person who died in suspicious circumstances, and the petitioner suspected that her son had been murdered. Therefore, she approached the police for investigation, and the police closed the matter, as the police thought that it was a case of an accidental death. Counters have been filed. 3. The death of the son of the petitioner had occurred somewhere 2 before 29th March, 2001. In the counter affidavit, it is stated by the respondents that on 6th June, 2001, the police station received information from one Dilip Ghansham Bhave that a male body was lying somewhere in the locality. A case of accidental death was registered by the police, and the matter was entrusted to the police officer for investigation. The dead body was referred for post mortem. The doctors were of the opinion that since the dead body was highly decomposed, they could not give any opinion abut the cause of death. During investigation, various persons known to the deceased were examined. The petitioner was also examined, and she had suspected some persons. Those persons were also interrogated by the police, and the police did not find any involvement of those persons in the matter. 4. The investigating agency was not able to come to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was because of murder and was not an accidental death. On the other hand, the Investigating Officer was of the opinion that it was an accidental death, since the deceased was in the habit of drinking, and there was a possibility that after drinking, he might have fallen in the deep valley from a rock. 3 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn our attention to a letter written by the petitioner to the District Superintendent of Police, where she had suspected the role of the Investigating Officer in the matter. This case is an unfortunate one, where the mother has lost a young son, but in order to book a person for a serious charge of murder, the police must have solid evidence. In spite of their best efforts, they were not able to get any evidence, which would suggest that the deceased had died as a result of murder. 6. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the petition, which is accordingly dismissed. BILAL NAZKI, J. A.P. DESHPANDE, J.