1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.4141/2009 The State of Maharashtra Applicant V E R S U S Popat Vilas Deshpande and another. Respondent Mrs. B.R. Khekale learned APP for the applicant. Shri S.A. Wakure, Advocate for the respondents. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 29 th JULY, 2010. ----- PER COURT : 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. This is an application preferred by the applicant-state, seeking leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 20 th August, 2009, rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No.52/2008 acquitting the respondents/original accused, for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 3. I have perused impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 20.8.2009 as well as record and proceedings with the assistance of 2 learned counsel for the parties. 4. The victim Pranjali married with the accused No.1 Popat Deshpande on 24.2.1995 and they have begotten two sons and one daughter out of said wedlock, whereas accused No.2 Kamalbai Deshpande is mother- in-law of victim Pranjali. The victim Pranjali committed suicide on 24.9.2007 by pouring kerosene on her person and set her ablaze in her matrimonial home, allegedly because of the ill treatment and trouble to which she was subjected by the accused became unbearable. 5. Respondents/accused faced trial for the charges 498-A, 396 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and to substantiate the said charges, prosecution has examined in as much as five witnesses namely : a] PW 1 Suresh Digambarrao Shedgar, i.e. complainant and victim’s father. B] PW 2 Anupama Kulkarni, aunty of victim. C] PW 3 Sunita Borade neighbourer of victim’s father. D] PW 4 Umakant who registered crime. E] PW 5 Anjum Shaikh Investigating officer. 6. There are allegations that victim Pranjali was subjected to cruelty by the accused persons taunting her that she was insane, did not know cooking etc. Admittedly, one dying declaration was recorded which is produced at Exh.28. 3 7. On perusal of the contents of said dying declaration Exh.28, it is seen that same was recorded by police on 24.9.2007 and said dying declaration discloses that since stomachache became unbearable to her she poured kerosene on her person and committed suicide. She sustained 92 percent injuries as disclosed in the postmortem notes and succumbed to the said injuries. The said dying declaration Exh.28 further discloses that victim had no grievance against anybody and she had no complaint against anybody. Hence, said dying declaration absolves the respondents. 8. It also appears that victim made oral dying declaration before her father Suresh that trouble became unbearable to her and she set herself on fire and said trouble had reference that since she delivered daughter, victim was subjected to ill treatment by the accused persons. However, even assuming for the sake of assumptions without admitting the contents of said oral dying declaration, it is apparent that said oral dying declaration and written dying declaration Exh.28 are contradictory to each other. 9. Apart from that, after scrutinizing and appreciating the evidence on record, learned trial judge has observed in the impugned judgment that evidence of PW 2 Anupama Kulkarni and PW 3 Sunita Borade are in general terms and nothing can be inferred in favour of the prosecution on the basis of said testimonies, as regards the ill treatment and cruelty at the hands of the 4 accused and it is further observed that evidence of prosecution does not establish any nexus with the accused, as regards to the allegations of subjecting the deceased to cruelty. Leaned trial judge further observed that the evidence tendered by the prosecution does not lead to the conclusion that the deceased committed suicide because of the alleged trouble to her by the accused. 10. Having comprehensive view of the matter, reasoning adopted by the learned trial judge, while acquitting the accused persons, appears to be logical and therefore same cannot be faulted with and the view adopted by the learned trial judge, after analyzing evidence on record is a possible view to be adopted and same does not appear to be perverse and therefore no interference therein is warranted in the appellate jurisdiction and, therefore, same deserves to be rejected. 11. In the result, present application being sans merit, stands dismissed. Leave to file appeal stands refused. 12. Record and proceedings be sent back to the concerned curt. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE ) JUDGE ..... aaa/4141.09