1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 824 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ..... APPLICANT V E R S U S Ramesh S/o Kisan Shendge & Others .... RESPONDENTS Shri. Deelip Bankar Patil, A.P.P. for State. [ CORAM : R.M.BORDE, J. ] DATE : 22/06/2009 ------------------------------------------------- PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. Deelip Bankar Patil, A.P.P. for State. This is an application seeking leave to present Appeal against the Order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 10/11/2008 in Sessions Case No. 57 of 2008 recording acquittal of accused in respect of offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. The applicant has also prayed for grant of leave as contemplated under Section 378 (1) (b) of Code of Criminal Procedure. 2 2. As per the case of prosecution, deceased Sakharbai committed suicide by jumping in well between 26/2/2007 and 27/2/2007. According to prosecution, suicidal death of Sakharbai was on account of abetment at the hands of accused. The accused used to illtreat the deceased on account of non fulfillment of illegal demand. The marriage is said to have been performed some 15 years back and the couple was blessed with 2 children. The other accused, apart from the husband implicated in the crime, are the parents and sister of accused no. 1. The defence of accused is of denial. 3. On perusal of Judgment and Order recorded by the trial Court, it is revealed that there is discrepancy in the evidence in respect of alleged demand of amount of Rs. 30,000/- ( Rupees Thirty Thousand only ) for construction of well and Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) for laying pipe line. P.W. 1 Keru has stated in respect of alleged demand prior to 7 – 8 months of the occurrence of incidence, whereas P.W. 1 states that demand was some 7 – 8 years after marriage. There is also nothing on record to indicate as to whether the accused has in fact started construction of well or laying down of pipe line or construction of house. Considering the evidence placed on record, the trial Court refused to accept the prosecution version in respect of alleged demand of amount. 3 The view adopted by the trial Court appears to be reasonable and plausible. Merely because some other view is also possible in the facts and circumstances of the case, is no ground in causing interference in the order of acquittal. The application seeking leave to present Appeal, therefore, stands rejected. Consequently, Appeal fails and stands dismissed. [ R.M.BORDE ] JUDGE knp/CRIAPLN824.09