JUDGMENT :

1. Heard.

2. Admit.

3. In this appeal filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a challenge is raised to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.27/2016 dated 23/05/2019 acquitting the accused Nos.1 and 2/respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. It is the case of the prosecution in brief that on 10/03/2015, one Sandip Vitthal Chaudhari committed suicide by jumping into the well. One Shankar Rambhau Chaudhari-PW-1, who is the uncle of the deceased lodged a report about accidental death and hence, Marg No.10/2015 was registered under Section 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

5. While doing inquest panchanama, a suicide note was found in a plastic pouch in the pocket of trouser of the deceased Sandip. In the suicide note, accused Nos.1 and 2 were blamed for the suicide. It was stated in the suicide note that the deceased was being harassed by the accused.

6. Thereupon, on 13/05/2015, the report was lodged by Vitthal Rambhau Chaudhari, blaming accused Nos.1 and 2 for suicide of deceased Sandip.

7. Accordingly, Crime No.40/2015 came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

8. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet on 01/01/2016. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Washim framed the charge under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide Exhibit-10 against the accused persons. Both the accused pleaded not guilty vide Exhs.11 & 12 and claimed to be tried. The prosecution has examined in all 12 witnesses to prove its case. The defence of the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was of total denial and they contended that the false case has been lodged against them. The defence did not examine any witness or not examined themselves in support of their case.

9. The learned trial Court after marshaling and on scrutiny of the evidence, acquitted both the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide impugned judgment and order dated 23/05/2019. The correctness and legality of the same has been questioned in this appeal.

10. Learned Counsel for the appellant Ms Lakhani submits that while acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3, the learned Sessions Judge had given perverse findings, which are not based on the evidence. It is therefore, submits that acquittal of the respondent Nos.2 and 3 is erroneous.

11. It is further submitted that the suicide note recovered from the pocket of the trouser of the deceased, wherein he has blamed the accused persons for suicide, is sufficient to establish the guilt against the accused Nos.1 and 2 beyond doubt. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has ignored the said suicide note while acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3.

12. Ms Lakhani, learned Counsel for the appellant further submits that the prosecution has examined 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt against the accused. It is submitted that in spite of the sufficient evidence brought on record to establish the offence against the accused, the accused were acquitted by ignoring material evidence available on record. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605 , Amalendu Pal Vs. State of West Bengal, (2010) 1 SCC 707 and Ude Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, (2019) 17 SCC 301.

13. Shri R.D. Khapre, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 supports the impugned judgment and order dated 23/05/2019, acquitting the respondent Nos.2 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

14. It is submitted that the learned trial Court, after scrutinizing the evidence in detail and after recording the