Farad Continuation Sheet No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1637 OF 2008 IN CRI. REVISION APPLN. NO. OF 2008 (SMT. PANCHFULA DUDHARAM FULZELE .Vs. STATE OF MAH. & 3 OTH.) ________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoramda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. ______________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.M.Rizwy, Advocate for applicant. Shri M. Wakil, Advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 24, 2008. 1. Though the learned counsel for the respondents has opposed this application, for the reasons mentioned in this application the application is allowed. CRI.REVISION NO. /2008. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This revision takes exception to the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby he acquitted respondents No.2 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code. The learned counsel for the applicant may be right in submitting that the prosecution had proved that the death of the victim was occurred on account of smothering. That does not make respondents No.2 to 4 authors of the act which led to death of the victim. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence carefully. There is no evidence to show that the respondents No.2 to 4 can be connected to the act which led to death of the victim. Their proximity with the victim soon before the death has not been established. There are no eyewitnesses. Merely because the victim was having illicit relations with respondent No.3, it does not follow that the respondents 2 to 4 could have caused the death of the victim. The contention that respondent No.3 took the victim to hospital was also required to be proved by some evidence. 4. Therefore, the judgment does not show that it requires to be corrected in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The revision is dismissed. JUDGE RR.