JUDGMENT This Application has been moved by the State of Maharashtra for seeking leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (the Act for short) against the order of acquittal dated 30.1.2010 passed by the learned 4th Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge. Borivali Division in Sessions Case No.492 of 1996. 2. The present respondents/original accused nos.1 to 5 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304B read with Section 34 of IPC, and came to be acquitted of all the charges. 3. The accused no.1-Harish Ramanbhai Bramhabhat, who was married to Bijal the daughter of Ramanlal Chunilal Bramhabhat (P.W.-1) on 25.5.1994, and while at matrimonial home located at Borivali, she allegedly jumped from 4th floor of her matrimonial home and in the said incident she died on 13.6.1995. P.W.-6- Manohar Dalvi, Dy.S.P. attached to the concerned Police Station arrived at site along with P.S.I. Shri. Kadam. and recorded the statements, at Exh.44. The brother of deceased-Bijal allegedly raised a suspicion over the incident, and therefore, he was taken to the Police Station and statement of brother of the deceased was recorded at Exh.45 which is treated as F.I.R. P.W.-6 took all the accused persons in custody, and after investigation a charge-sheet was filed. 4. The prosecution examined in all six witnesses i.e. Shri. Ramanlal Chunilal Bramhabhat - P. W. 1 the father of the deceased Bijal, Smt. Kamlaben Ramanlal Bramhabhat P.W.-2 the wife of P.W.1. Shri. Anil Ramanlal Bramhabhat P.W.-3. the son of P.W.-l and P.W.2, Shri. Prashant Labhashankar Lakhlani P.W.-4 a family friend of P.W.1, Smt. Bharati Kirtikumar Bramhabhat P.W.-5- a mediator with the help of whom the marriage was settled and Dy. S.P. Manohar U. Salvi-PW.-6 the Investigating Officer. 5. The accused had taken a specific defence that while the deceased-Bijal was in the balcony of 4th floor. she fell down from 4th floor and in the said incident she died. Thus, as per the accused, Bijal died an accidental death. The learned trial judge considering the entire evidence before her, held that the prosecution could not prove the case under any of the offences and against any of the accused. The learned trial judge considered the documents at Exhibits 12, 13 and 14 i.e. Inquest Panchanama. spot panchanama and postmortem report respectively. The learned trial judge considering the entire evidence before her, held that the prosecution could not prove the case under any of the offences and against any of the accused. The learned trial judge considered the documents at Exhibits 12, 13 and 14 i.e. Inquest Panchanama. spot panchanama and postmortem report respectively. In paragraph 10 of the impugned order, the learned trial judge noted thus: "It is the case of prosecution, that the deceased died suicidal. In this regard, the sport panchanama as well as inquest panchanama are material documents. On perusal of spot panchanama (admitted by the defence side) vide Exh.13. it seems that the gallery i.e. the spot has the parapet wall of 3.2 feet in height. It is the defence of the accused that the death of deceased is accidental since she fell down while putting the clothes on the rope in the gallery. The reliance is placed on the inquest panchanama. On perusal of inquest panchanama, it seems that the wire was entangled to the body of the deceased and there is one iron angle found on the body of the deceased below the waist. The angle is also seen to be bent. The inquest panchanama further shows that in the gallery the iron angle was seen in broken condition. So the situation itself shows that there is no possibility of committing suicide by the deceased. The possibility of accidental death putting the clothes on the rope cannot be ruled out. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased died suicidal." 6. The trial court further noted that the marriage of accused no.1 Harish with the deceased was performed without any financial considerations, and there was no demand made from the accused either by way of money and/ or articles. 7. We have perused the depositions of all the witnesses and we have no doubt that the trial court did not commit any error in acquitting the accused. In our considered opinion, the reasoning set out by the trial court in support of its order of acquittal does not call for reconsideration at our hands, and hence there is no case made out to grant leave to appeal in this application. 8. Hence, leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is hereby refused, and the application stands dismissed accordingly. Application dismissed.