1 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.17 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2011 Digambar Bhramaji Nikhate, Age-44 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Railway Quarters No.3, Building No.12, Station Road, Nanded APPLICANT VERSUS 1. Raju Maroti Kalbande, Age-24 years, Occu-Labour, 2. Maroti Masaji Kalbande, Age-59 years, Occu-Labour, 3. Panjab Maroti Kalbande, Age-31 years, Occu-Service, 4. Gangubai Tukaram Dhule, Age-84 years, Occu-Household, All are R/o.Dhudhad Abadi, Tq.Himayatnagar, Dist.Nanded 5. The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENTS Mr.A.M.Gaikwad, learned counsel for the applicant. Mr.N.R.Shaikh, learned A.P.P. for respondent State. Mr.K.B.Jadhav h/f. Mr.S.B.Bhapkar, learned counsel for respondents no.1 to 4. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 28/04/2011 2 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.17 of 2011 PER COURT : 1. By the present criminal revision application, the applicant has questioned the correctness and legality of the order of acquittal passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in respect of offence punishable u/s. 304(b) r/w. 34 of The IPC against the original accused no.1,3 and 4, the brother in law, father in law and grand mother in law of deceased Vaishali respectively. 2. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Court has convicted husband of Vaishali by name Panjab Maroti -Kalbande, original accused no.3 for the offence punishable u/s. 304-b and 498-A r/w. 34 of The IPC. Original accused no.1, brother in law of deceased, and father in law of deceased were also convicted u/s. 498-A r/w. 34 of The IPC. They have challenged the order of conviction and sentence in Criminal Appeal No.90/2006, which is already admitted. 3. Grand mother in law of deceased Vaishali, original accused no. 4 Gangubai was acquitted for the offence punishable u/s. 304(b), so also u/s. 498-A of The IPC. 4. Heard respective counsels for the parties. Perused the impugned judgment. On perusal of the record and proceeding, it reveals that to prove these offences, prosecution had relied upon the evidence of prosecution witness no.3 Shivganga and prosecution witness no.4 Digambar, the parents of the deceased. Careful perusal of their evidence, given in examination in chief, indicates that the 3 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.17 of 2011 incident occurred 10 to 11 days prior to the death of the deceased, which had taken place at the residential premises of the parents of the deceased. On going through the entire evidence, facts about brutality, mercilessness, beating and harassment at the hands of husband of the accused Panjab are brought on record, who was convicted by the Trial Court for both the offences punishable u/s. 304(b), 498-A of The IPC. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses, who are the star witnesses of the prosecution, nowhere revealed any part played by the brother in law, or father in law or grand-mother in law of the deceased during those 10-11 days. On the contrary, evidence given by these witnesses show harassment only at the hands of husband of Vaishali i.e. Panjab at the residence of these witnesses itself. Their evidence nowhere discloses about the visit, illtreatment or any active participation at the hands of these respondents. Considering this evidence, the learned Trial Court has rightly acquitted these accused from the offence punishable u/s. 304(b) while respondent no.4 from the offence punishable u/s. 304(b) and 498-A of The IPC. If two views are possible and one probable view is accepted by the Trial Court while acquitting the accused for certain offences, then in revision or appeal against acquittal, unless some perversity is brought on record, there shall not be any interference at the hands of Revisional Court. Considering this legal aspect and the evidence recorded before the Trial Court and the reasoning recorded by the Trial Court while acquitting respondent no. 4 Gangubai in toto and respondent Raju brother in law, Maroti father in law for the offence punishable u/s. 304(b) of the IPC, I think no 4 Cri.Rev.Appl.No.17 of 2011 interference is required at the hands of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction. Revision application sans any merit, hence dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/APRIL 2011/cri.rev.17-11