1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Application No.288 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 [State of Mah. Vs. Shashibhushan D. Paliwal & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the appellant. Mr. C.H. Jaltare, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 20th April, 2010. 1. This is an application for condonation of delay of 92 days, caused in filing of appeal by the State. 2. Heard. 3. Accepting the reasons stated in the application to be good and sufficient, application is allowed. Delay caused in filing of appeal is condoned. Judge |Hedau| 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 [State of Mah. Vs. Shashibhushan D. Paliwal & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S.S. Doifode, APP for the appellant. Mr. C.H. Jaltare, Adv., for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. ----- CORAM : A.H. JOSHI, J. DATE : 20th April, 2010. 1. This is an appeal against acquittal preferred by the State. 2. Heard. 3. Perused the Judgment. 4. It is seen that the accused were prosecuted for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 5. Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Agam was being tortured over demand of money for purchasing a computer. On the other hand, it had come on record that deceased Agam had taken a computer with her. 3 6. The story developed by the prosecution that the computer taken was not worthy and, therefore, money was demanded is the version which was improved and stated before the Court, which was never disclosed to the police. 7. Even the acts of torture or ill- treatment on account of dowry-related demand were not proved by the prosecution. 8. Demand of various household articles, such as Washing Machine, Refrigerator, television, cupboard, dining table, sofa set etc., was not proved. 9. It is seen that the finding recorded by the Trial Court is based on appreciation of evidence, which is not shown to be erroneous. 10. Even it is not the grievance of the prosecution that any material evidence on record has not been considered by the Trial Court. 11. In these premises, the appeal is seen to be without merit. 12. In the result, appeal has no merit, and is dismissed. Judge |Hedau| 4