JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. Admit. 3. Heard finally by consent. 4. By this application filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the applicant has challenged the order passed on 09/10/2014 below application (Exh.74) filed by the applicant under Section 173(8) read with Section 156 (3) of Cr. P. C. seeking direction for reinvestigation, by Additional Sessions Judge-11, Nagpur in Sessions Trial No.161 of 2014. It is the contention of the applicant that his sister, Bharti, did not commit suicide and was murdered in cold blooded manner by her husband, respondent No.2. The applicant submits, even though respondent No.2 has been prosecuted by the investigating agency for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer was improper and did not at all consider the aspect of meeting of homicidal death by deceased Bharti. He submits that as per the prosecution case, deceased Bharti committed suicide by injecting poison into her body by intravenous syringe, but it is not possible for any person to self inject the poison by using intravenous syringe. He submits that injection through intravenous syringe is possible only when a proper vein on the arm is located and location of such a vein cannot be carried out without help of another person. He further submits, the investigating agency ought to have conducted proper investigation and the learned Sessions Judge has committed serious illegality in not directing reinvestigation of the entire case. He submits that the mere fact that sessions trial was fixed for final argument and there would be further delay in concluding the trial would not be a ground for rejection of the application filed by the applicant. He placed his reliance upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hasanbhai Valibhai Qureshi Vs. State of Gujrat and others rendered in Appeal (Criminal) No. 421 of 2004 decided on 05/4/2004. 5. So far as the contention that reinvestigation or further investigation of the case, if circumstances so justify, cannot be refused only on the ground that it would further delay conclusion of the trial is concerned, there is no dispute. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hasanbhai (supra) has laid down the principle that further investigation is never ruled out by the mere fact that cognizance has been taken by the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hasanbhai (supra) has laid down the principle that further investigation is never ruled out by the mere fact that cognizance has been taken by the Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that further investigation can be permitted when defective investigation comes to light during the course of trial. Thus, it would have to be seen whether any defective investigation has been suspected during the trial in this case or not. 6. On going through the impugned order, I find that no defect in investigation has come to light during the course of the trial. Initially, the applicant had filed his written report dated 30/8/2013 alleging that respondent No.2 committed murder of deceased Bharti. Later on, the applicant filed another report on 02/9/2013 alleging that due to ill-treatment meted out to deceased Bharti by respondent No.2, deceased Bharti committed suicide and thus, offence punishable under Section 306 IPC came to be registered against respondent No.2. After completion of the investigation, respondent No.2 was also prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 306 IPC. The evidence of prosecution witnesses was recorded and none of the witnesses including the applicant came out with a specific case supported by appropriate material that it was not a case of suicidal death but one of homicidal death. It may not be out of place to mention here that the applicant, when examined as prosecution witness, made a categorical statement that the contents of his report dated 02/9/2013 were correct. Even, his mother deposed before the Court that respondent No.2 abetted the commission of suicide. It was only the sister of applicant named Vijaya, who deposed that she suspected that it was a case of murder and not of suicide. Mere suspicion is not enough for warranting further investigation. Some material has to be placed on record to show that possibility of homicidal death is not ruled out. No such material has been admittedly placed by the applicant or any of the witnesses, nor any clues were there or provided by any of them leading to a reasonable apprehension of the death of the deceased Bharti being one of homicide. On the contrary, as stated earlier, it has all throughout been a specific case of the applicant and his mother that deceased Bharti committed suicide, which was abetted by respondent No.2. On the contrary, as stated earlier, it has all throughout been a specific case of the applicant and his mother that deceased Bharti committed suicide, which was abetted by respondent No.2. Therefore, I find that no defect in the investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer can be noticed in this case nor the applicant has pointed out to me any such defect in the investigation. 7. As regards the contention that any fluid cannot be self injected by person through intravenous syringe, I must say that even this contention is not supported by any medical evidence. It appears that the applicant, during the course of his evidence before the Court, even did not make any suggestive remark in this behalf. The applicant was admittedly allowed to assist the prosecution by engaging an Advocate and his Advocate was also present at the time of recording of the evidence. But, neither any suggestion in this regard was given nor any possibility was raised by the applicant that no fluid through intravenous syringe can be self injected by any person. Therefore, even this contention cannot be accepted so as to conclude that this is a fit case warranting further investigation in the matter. 8. In the result, I find neither any illegality nor impropriety having been committed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in rejecting the application (Exh.74) filed by the applicant. The application, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed accordingly.