1 mss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3223 OF 2010 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .. .. APPLICANT Vs. RAVINDRA BAJIRAO KHARATE & ORS. .. RESPONDENTS Ms. P. H. Kantharia, APP CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI & SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED: 5TH AUGUST, 2010 P.C. The State of Maharashtra has challenged the judgment and order dated 16/5/08 passed by the Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 171 of 2006. By the impugned judgment and order learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the respondents, who 2 are original accused 1 to 3 respectively of the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”). Respondent 1 is the husband of deceased Savita. Respondent 2 is her father-in-law and respondent 3 is her mother-in-law. We shall refer to them as per their description in the trial court. 2. Accused 1 was married to the deceased on 10/7/05. According to the prosecution a sum of Rs.10,000/- was given to the accused by the complainant PW 1 who is the father of the deceased. The complainant was demanding the said amount from the accused and hence the accused were ill-treating the deceased. According to the prosecution due to this ill-treatment the deceased committed suicide on 11/7/06 by jumping into the well. 3. In order to prove offence under Section 304-B of the IPC the prosecution has to prove that the death of a woman was caused under suspicious circumstances within seven years of her marriage and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry soon before her death. Under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act, if it is shown that soon before a woman’s death she had been subjected to cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand the court may presume that such a person has caused the dowry death. 3 Undoubtedly in this case the death had occurred within seven years of the deceased’s marriage but in our opinion the prosecution has not adduced evidence to substantiate its case that cruelty or harassment was meted out to the deceased soon before her death in connection with demand of dowry. 4. PW 1 Subhash Potinde, father of the deceased has said that he had paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused as loan. He has admitted that out of Rs.10,000/- the accused had returned Rs.4,000/-. Thus the amount of Rs.10,000/- was given as a loan and not as dowry. PW 1 has not stated that any dowry was given or demanded. He has made general allegations about ill-treatment. He has stated that the deceased used to come to his house for festivals and used to tell him that the accused used to criticise her by saying that she did not know agricultural work and household work. According to him the deceased told him that they used to ill-treat her because he had asked the accused to repay the loan amount. It is pertinent to note that PW 1 has also stated that the deceased used to visit his house along with her husband and her husband used to stay in their house. He has further stated that his wife had also visited the house of the deceased on number of occasions. The prosecution has examined PW 2 Sudamrao Potinde, the brother of 4 the complainant. He has also repeated that PW 1 had paid Rs.10,000/- to the accused as loan and PW 1 had demanded that amount. There is no whisper in his evidence that any dowry was paid or demanded. He has also made a general allegation that the deceased used to tell him that the accused were beating her and abusing her. 5. It is pertinent to note that PW 1 lodged complaint three days after the date of incident, Though he has denied that he filed the complaint after consultation with other persons, the delay casts shadow of suspicion on the prosecution case. Since there is no demand of dowry and the allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment are general and there is delay in lodging the FIR, in our opinion, the view taken by learned Sessions Judge is a reasonably possible view which cannot be interfered with in an appeal against the order of acquittal. The application is, therefore, dismissed. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (SMT. V. K. TAHILRAMANI, J.)