Judgment: The petitioner (first informant), has questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 8.1.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 56/2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola. It appears that the petitioner is the mother of deceased Urmila who was married to Gajanan Omkar Tekade on 23rd June 1999. Urmila was residing at village Mhatodi Tq. & Dist. Akola after her marriage. It is alleged that whenever she used to visit her parents, she used to complain about ill-treatment and harassment received from her husband and other in-laws. It is further alleged that there was demand for dowry from Respondent (original accused-Respondent No.2). The Respondent-Damodar Shankar Tekade is uncle of Gajanan Onkar Tekade and respondent Suman @ Sumitrabai is the mother of Gajanan Onkar Tekade. It is alleged that they were also instigating Gajanan to beat Urmila (deceased) over demand of dowry. Further, according to the applicant, as a result of ill-treatment and harassment, her daughter Urmila committed suicide by gulping poison and in the result she had died at night intervening between 11.11.2002 and 12.11.2002. It appears that as a result of report by the petitioner to the police, which was typewritten by her Advocate addressed to Station House Officer Akot Fail Police Station, Akola, crime was registered and investigated. In the result, the respondent nos. 2 to 4 were charge-sheeted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Akola who, committed the case to the Court of Sessions Akola as accusations were u/s 306 read with section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge was framed against the accused on 6.8.2003, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and closed the evidence by praecipe (Exh.42) on 8.1.2004. 2. It appears that considering the short evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge, Akola decided the case on the same day by the impugned judgment and order. 3. It is the grievance of the applicant that some more witnesses were also expected to be examined in the case. One Ashok Vishwasrao More was to be examined on 9.1.2004; however, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor gave a praecipe that prosecution do not want to examine any other witness. The praecipe was given at Exh.41 by which witnesses were listed whom prosecution did not want to examine. One Ashok Vishwasrao More was to be examined on 9.1.2004; however, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor gave a praecipe that prosecution do not want to examine any other witness. The praecipe was given at Exh.41 by which witnesses were listed whom prosecution did not want to examine. It appears that Sr.No..8 the name of Ashok Vishwasrao More also appears. Thus, the prosecution had chosen not to examine him. That being so, it cannot be said that some more witnesses were to be examined by the prosecution. The applicant who was first informant in the case, did not apply in the trial Court nor protested before the Trial Court on the ground that the case of the prosecution ought not to have been closed on that day or that some more witnesses were essential for just decision of the case. She could have applied under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. had she insisted that evidence of more witnesses was essential for just decision of the case. 4. I have heard submissions at the Bar advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant as also by the learned APP and perused the impugned judgment and order. The trial Court had observed thus “It is admitted position that accused did not demand anything during marriage and had accepted everything that was voluntarily given to Urmila by her parents. Admittedly she had been to the place of her parents from Akola itself when she was brought in the hospital of Dr. Dahankar on 11.11.2002”. 5. Looking at these observations as also the reasons assigned for acquittal, it must be noted that applicant Pramilabai and her sons Ashok and Vilas were interrogated by the police immediately after the death of Urmila and the trial Court noted further that all of them have stated that they do not have any complaint against the accused. Thus, the allegations levelled were duly considered in the impugned judgment. The trial Court had posed a question that if at all Urmila was repeatedly telling her parents about the alleged incident of ill-treatment and harassment what prevented Pramila and her sons from disclosing such facts to the police at the earliest opportunity. There was no explanation or answer to this question. Furthermore, it was also admitted by petitioner Pramila in the trial Court that complaint (Exh.22) was drafted by her Advocate. There was no explanation or answer to this question. Furthermore, it was also admitted by petitioner Pramila in the trial Court that complaint (Exh.22) was drafted by her Advocate. It may be noted that the complaint dated 20.11.2002 typewritten in Marathi was reported to the police on 21.11.2002 at 16.40 hours. According to the applicant she had received psychological shock after last rites of her daughter and when she felt proper she reported it to the police on 21.11.2002. Be that, as it may, since the complaint was admittedly drafted by her Advocate, it was necessary for the applicant to explain delay satisfactorily in the trial Court. My attention is also invited by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor's to the communication dated 2.3.2005 addressed to the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench Nagpur from the Law & Judiciary Department of the State of Maharashtra, that the Department did not consider it as a fit case for filing appeal in the High Court. 6. For all these reasons, no interference is called for in the judgment and order of acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. No ground whatsoever is made out for interference with the impugned judgment and order. Revision is dismissed.