JUDGMENT

SURENDRA PANDHARINATH TAVADE,J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of learned counsel for both the parties, heard finally at admission stage.

2. The applicants are arraigned as an accused in Crime No. 133 of 2011, registered at Renapur Police Station, District Latur for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 384 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "IPC ") at the behest of the informant Mainabai Vishnu Hanvate, resident of Sathe Nagar, Pangaon, Tq. Renapur, District Latur.

3. It is alleged by the informant that the deceased Mahadev was her son. He was prosecuted by police for the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. Said case was pending since long. On Sunday dated 18.09.2011 the applicants visited the house of the informant and informed her that a warrant was issued against her son Mahadev. The applicants directed the informant to take the date and get the warrant cancelled. They demanded Rs. 500/- from the informant, accordingly she paid it. It is also alleged that the applicants were demanding Rs. 1,000/- from the informant and on that count they harassed her. It is further alleged that on 21.09.2011 the informant and her son went to the Court but the Clerk could not trace out the file of Mahadev, hence they returned home. On the same day, at about 10.00 to 10.30 p.m. Mahadev returned home hurriedly and asked the informant to close the door of the house. Mahadev disclosed that police had come to arrest her. Thereafter Mahadev went out of the house from rear door. About 15- 20 minutes thereafter, the informant came out of the house and saw that Mahadev had committed suicide by handing himself on the tamarind tree. With the help of neighbours, the body of Mahadev was taken on the ground and thereafter, it was taken to the Primary Health Center, Pangaon, where, doctor declared him dead, hence his body was sent for postmortem at Latur. Thereafter, FIR came to be lodged against the applicants.

4. On bare reading of the FIR it appears that the applicants had demanded money from the informant. It is not established from the contents of the FIR that at the time of visit of the applicants to the house of the informant the deceased Mahadev was present. It is also not alleged in the FIR that in the night of 21.09.2011 the applicants had gone to the house of the informant for demanding Rs. 1,000/-, in fact, it is prima-facie established from the statements of other witnesses that there was Grampanchyat election on 21.09.2011, therefore, RCP squad was deployed in the village. It is also come on record that the applicants were given the duty of making arrangement of stay and dinner of the said squad.

5. No doubt, it is in the statement of Sonali d/o Vishnu Hanvate, who is the daughter of the informant that the applicants had visited her house in the night of 21.09.2011 and they had assaulted Mahadev. But there is no whisper of the said fact in the FIR of Mainabai. The investigating Officer has recorded the statements of friends of the deceased Mahadev namely Chhagan Hanvate, Lahu Vaijinath Upade and Raju Mane. On perusal of said statements, it appears that in the fateful night, the deceased Mahadev had consumed liquor with Ghhagan Ganvate and Lahu Upade near the house of Raju Mane. Thereafter, he went home. It also appears that at about 10.00 p.m. the deceased Mahadev took eggs from the shop of Kevalbai and went home. The said statements show that they never saw the applicant inside the house of the deceased Mahadev. Therefore, the story of Sonali Hanvate that on the night of 21.09.2011 the applicant had came to her house and assaulted deceased Mahadev appears to be after thought.

6. Even if it is presumed that the applicants had visited the house of informant, then also it does not establish that they had aided or abetted the deceased Mahadev to commit suicide. The statements of other witnesses are not helpful to prima-facie establish the visit of the applicants to the house of the in