2008 ALL MR (Cri) 2711


State Of Maharashtra Vs. Harish Ramanna Shetty & Ors.

Criminal Application No.3115 of 2007

5th May, 2008

Petitioner Counsel: Mr. V. B. KONDE-DESHMUKH

Penal Code (1860), Ss.498A, 306 - Criminal P.C. (1973), S.378 - Cruelty - Abetment to commit suicide - Only vague allegations made - No specific incidents stated by any of the witnesses - No reasonable nexus established between suicide and ill-treatment and/or harassment on part of accused persons - Acquittal of accused, held, proper - Application for leave to file appeal, rejected. (Paras 6 to 8)


JUDGMENT :- The Applicant-State has preferred this application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order dated 5.5.2007 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane in Sessions No.199 of 2005. By the said judgment and order, the learned Sessions Judge has acquitted the Respondents-accused of the offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 406 read with Section 34 of IPC.

2. I have heard the learned APP for the State. I have perused the evidence which has been produced by him as well as the judgment and order.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused had demanded Rs.25,00,000/- to purchase the house. Due to harassment at the hands of accused on account of the said demand not being met, Rajlaxmi (deceased) committed suicide. The prosecution has relied on one suicide note which is supposed to be written by Rajlaxmi. The specimen handwriting of the deceased was collected. However, it is seen that there is no opinion of handwriting expert that the writing on the suicide note was in the handwriting of the deceased.

4. A perusal of evidence of PW-1 Mr. Iyer shows that he has admitted that accused Harish never told him to provide house. In fact, house has been provided by the complainant in Nishigandha Apartment for the residence of Rajlaxmi (deceased). The fact of providing house to Rajlaxmi at Nishigandha Apartment, cannot be said to be connected with any demand of the accused or on account of any harassment by the accused persons. The evidence of complainant is clear on this point. It is seen from the evidence of the complainant that he had received the amount of deposit from the landlord after the death of his daughter Rajlaxmi.

5. It is further the prosecution case that ornaments of Rajlaxmi were taken away by Harish and his mother i.e. Respondent Nos.1 and 4. However, the admission of the complainant in his evidence that Harish has given no objection in writing for getting back the ornaments of Rajlaxmi which were kept in the Bank. This admission has wiped out the case of the prosecution that ornaments were in the possession of the husband and mother in law and they converted the said ornaments to their own use.

6. As far as the allegations of harassment is concerned, only vague allegations have been made. No specific incidents have been stated by any of the witnesses. In my view, no reasonable nexus has been established between the suicide and any ill-treatment and or harassment on the part of the accused persons.

7. Looking to the evidence on record, I am of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Sessions Judge is a reasonable and possible view. Hence, no interference is called for.

8. In this view of the matter, application for leave to file appeal is rejected.

Appeal rejected.