1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 263/2007 Bapurao s/o Gyanoba Wadje Petitioner. V E R S U S Babu and the State of Maharashtra. Respondents. Shri G.R.Ingole Patil adv h/f S.B.Pulkundwar, Advocate for petitioner. Shri K.T.Shirurkar adv h/f Sanjay Kolhare Advocate for resp.No. 1 Mr. N.R. Shaikh A.P.P. for R-2. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. Ingole instructed by advocate Mr. Pulkundwar for the petitioner, Advocate Mr. Shirurkar instructed by Mr. Kolhare for respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P. Mr. Shaikh, for Respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar dt. 31.08.2007 recorded in Sessions Case No.35/2004. The learned trial court has acquitted the respondent No.1 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. 2 3. This is revision application filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Criminal Procedure Code challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial court for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, indisputably, marriage of deceased Rukminibai and respondent No.1 had been solemnized around 15 years prior to the date of incident. The date of incident in the case on hand is 23.05.2004. Name of deceased person is Rukminibai. Respondent No.1 and deceased Rukminibai were blessed with two daughters and one son. Among these two daughters one of the daughter Sonia at the relevant time was residing with the present petitioner. Petitioner is father of deceased Rukminibai i.e father-in-law of respondent No.1. According to petitioner, marriage of his another daughter Sangita was scheduled on 08.05.2004. Respondent No.1 being son-in-law and deceased Rukminibai were invited for the marriage of Sangita. Both of them have attended the marriage. According to petitioner/original complainant, at the time of marriage of Sangita, respondent No.1 was expecting a gift of golden ring or price of the golden ring in cash. He suggested his demand of golden ring to the present petitioner. Petitioner could not make payment of money, neither was able to furnish the demand of respondent No.1 for golden ring. Marriage of Sangita was solemnized on 08.05.2004. There after religious ceremony (Satyanarayan Pooja) was scheduled on 20.05.2004 at the place of petitioner i.e. village Ambulga. For this religious ceremony also 3 respondent No.1, son-in-law and deceased Rukminibai were invited. Both of them have attended the occasion. According to the petitioner that time also respondent No.1 demanded golden ring and refused to attend the lunch scheduled by the petitioner. Wife of the petitioner and petitioner himself requested respondent No.1, that is how respondent No. 1 and deceased Rukminibai had attended the lunch arranged by the petitioner. Ceremony was performed. Next day morning, both of them i.e. respondent No.1 and deceased Rukminibai left for their village Bhendegaon. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that village Ambulga and Bhendegaon are from the same District. There was no serious complaint from Rukminibai earlier to 08.05.2004, more specifically pertaining to unlawful demand from the respondent No.1. In fact it is not the case of the prosecution that after marriage of respondent No.1, deceased Rukminibai was ill-treated at any point of time on account of non fulfillment of unlawful demand. Span of the case of the prosecution is very limited i.e. within period from 08.05.2004 till 20.05.2004. According to petitioner, because of non fulfillment of demand of respondent No.1 for golden ring he ill-treated or treated cruelly deceased Rukminibai and that is how deceased Rukminibai committed suicide by consuming poison on 22.05.2004. To establish the charges for the offence punishable under section 498-A and 306 on behalf of the prosecution four witnesses have been examined. Among these four witnesses, present petitioner and his wife are the star 4 witnesses. Apart from the allegations of demand made on 20.05.2004 and 08.05.2004 according to prosecution on 21.05.2004 deceased Rukminibai was ill-treated and/or assaulted by the respondent No.1 on account of non fulfillment of demand of golden ring. She had left matrimonial house, went to the bus stop of village Loha. She was followed by respondent No.1. Petitioner had received telephonic message. Petitioner along with his another son-in-law Mr. Rajeshwar went to village Loha. There they pacified both of them i.e. respondent No.1 and Rukminibai. Thereafter deceased Rukminibai and respondent No.1 went to their home and present petitioner along with his son-in-law Rajeshwar returned to village Ambulga. On 21.05.2004 incident of alleged ill-treatment according to petitioner was only on account of non fulfillment of unlawful demand of golden ring. This is the reason according to petitioner for committing suicide by deceased Rukminibai. 4. With the assistance of counsel for the petitioner, respondent No.1 and learned A.P.P., I have seen the observations of the trial Court. Trial Court has recorded a categorical finding that there was no allegations against respondent No.1 for unlawful demand for the marriage of respondent No.1 with the deceased Rukminibai till 08.05.2004 i.e. for about 15-20 years. Alleged demand of respondent No.1 at the time of pooja i.e. on 21.05.2004 and alleged quarrel is also taken into account by the trial Court. Submission on behalf of the 5 petitioner that mother, aunt Sunderabai of deceased Rukminibai and parents in law of deceased Rukminibai were the instigators has also considered by the trial court. It appears from the record that present petitioner had purchased some agricultural land at village Bhendgaon i. e place of resident of respondent No.1. Said agricultural land was given for cultivation to respondent No.1. Trial court has observed that there is material brought on record that respondent No.1 used to cultivate the land. Payment of Rs.40,000/- has also taken a note of by the trial court. According to trial court, relations among the present petitioner and respondent No.1 were not cordial on account of the transaction of agricultural land. Submission on behalf of the accused that unfortunate suicidal death of Rukminibai is being capitalized by the petitioner seems to have been considered and accepted by the trial court. 5. I have considered the submission on behalf of the parties on touch stone of revisional jurisdiction of this court under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In my view, no case for converting acquittal to conviction is established. 6. Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH ) JUDGE aaa/263.07 ...