N.W. Sambre, J.

1. Heard.

2. In Sessions Case No. 93 of 2002, the respondents/accused were acquitted of the offences punishable under section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed vide judgment and order dated 21.11.2003. As such, this revision by the complainant seeking remand.

3. Shri Babhulgaonkar, learned counsel for the applicant while trying to make out case for remand, would urge that the presumption under section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, is required to be considered, as the incident in question has occurred on 9.4.2002, resulting into suicide by the wife of accused no. 1 Avinash within 7 years from the date of marriage, which is 7.6.1995.

4. Apart from above, Advocate Shri Babhulgaonkar would urge that the contents of the suicide note exhibit 56 confirms the only conclusion that the cause of death of deceased Madhuri is the cruelty attributed by the respondents accused for demand of dowry, which has prompted the victim to commit suicide. He would then submit that the evidence of PW-1 Prabhawati and PW-2 Kamlakar, the complainant is disbelieved by the Court below incorrectly and if the cumulative effect is given, there is strong case for conviction of the respondents/accused. According to him, therefore, the matter needs to be remanded.

5. Learned A.P.P. supported the learned counsel for the applicant/complainant and submits that the acquittal ought not have been ordered in the matter by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

6. Shri G.K. Naik Thigale, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 4/accused persons would submit that the acquittal, as is ordered, is based on the testimony of the witnesses, who were examined by the prosecution and the other documentary evidence. According to him, even if the suicide note which is relied on by the complainant at exhibit 56 does not attribute any criminal intention to the accused persons. He would then urge that the cause for deceased Madhuri, wife of accused no. 1-Avinash, to commit suicide, is her medical problem, for which, she was under treatment since long and was unable to conceive for the second time. According to him, the material available on record depicts that there was coordial atmosphere at the house of the accused persons, where deceased Madhuri was cohabiting with accused-Avinash. According to him, the revision needs to be rejected.

7. With the assistance of the respective learned counsel, I have perused the original record in the matter. The prosecution story, as appears from the contents of the FIR and other investigation papers, is that deceased Madhuri, daughter of PW-1 Prabhawati and PW-2 Kamlakar was married to accused no. 1-Avinash on 7.6.1995.

8. Thereafter, it appears that she was having some gynecological problem and was under treatment and as such, gave birth to a female child in September, 2000. After the birth of the child in 2000, Madhuri committed suicide by leaving behind suicide note exhibit 56 on 9.4.2002. Exhibit 56 suicide note was addressed to her husband i.e. the accused no. 1, wherein she has not attributed a specific role to each of the accused in the commission of crime.

9. So far as accusation against the present respondents are concerned, charge came to be framed against them at Exhibit 9.

10. In support of the prosecution case, Prabhawati PW-1, mother of Madhuri examined at Exhibit 16, Kamlakar, father of deceased Madhuri-informant is examined at Exhibit 24. PW-3 Asaram at Exhibit 42, ASI-Shivaji Dhas examined at Exhibit 45 and handwriting expert-Parshuram Dhotre is examined at Exhibit 53, Investigating Officer PSI Shere is examined at Exhibit 67. In addition to exhibit 25, the complaint, inquest panchanama at Exhibit 43, the information tendered by accused-Balsaheb at Exhibit 46, seizure panchanama of inland letter exhibit 47, report of handwriting expert at exhibit 54, postmortem note exhibit 48, inland letters at exhibit 26. Exhibit 27 to exhibit 40 the letters