1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.113/2007 Shriram s/o Govindrao Sontake PETITIONER. V E R S U S Govind Narharrao Kaijkar and others RESPONDENTS. Shri A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri S.J. Sonwnane, A.P.P. for the State CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH , J. DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. A.M. Gaikwad for the petitioner. This revision application is filed by the petitioner under section 397 read with sec. 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after referred to as ‘the Code’ for short). The petitioner is father of deceased Pranita. Daughter of present petitioner Pranita was married to Sanjay @ Balu Narharrao Kaijkar, r/o Basmat, Tq. Basmat, District Hingoli somewhere on September 8, 2004. The petitioner indisputably is resident of Betmogra Tq. Mukhed, District Nanded. Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that deceased Pranita was residing with her husband Sanjay after marriage at Basmat (Taluka Place), District Hingoli. According to the petitioner, deceased Pranita was residing with 2 her husband, brother in law Govind, another brother in law Omkar, Smt Shashikala wife of Govind i.e. brother of husband of Pranita and mother in law Shrimatibai. Sanjay, husband of Pranita does have a sister namely Shalubai, married to one Pramod Kharjule. This is also not in dispute that Pramod Kharjule is in service and resident of Kalamnuri. Thus, deceased Pranita was residing with her husband Sanjay, two brother in law, wife of one of the brother-in-law and mother-in-law. Petitioner/complainant claims that deceased Pranita was being harassed, ill-treated on account of non fulfillment of unlawful demand of Rs.50,000/- made by Sanjay and his family members for purchasing motorcycle and starting a shop. Such ill-treatment, according to petitioner was disclosed to the petitioner and his wife i.e mother of deceased Pranita by her when she had visited her matrimonial house at the time of Diwali Festival in the year 2003. Marriage of deceased Pranita and Sanjay indisputably had taken place in the year 1999. According to the complainant the date of incident is 8 September, 2004. He received telephonic message of sustaining burn injuries by deceased Pranita. He suspected Sanjay husband of deceased Pranita and his other family members. . That is how present petitioner lodged a report Exh.21. Crime was registered under section 302, 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against Sanjay and other accused persons under section 306, 498-A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Along with husband Sanjay, there were six 3 accused persons. All of them were thus tried by the Court of Sessions. It was Sessions Case No.121/2006. This sessions case after trial, ended in conviction of original accused No.1 Sanjay i.e. husband of deceased Pranita for the offence punishable under section 498A, 306 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Sentence is also imposed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge by the judgment dated 15th March, 2007. In this proceeding, this court is not concerned with the sentence imposed upon the husband but then just for reference. Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Gaikwad points out that original accused No.1 Sanjay, husband of deceased Pranita has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence. Original accused No.1 Sanjay is also sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- with default sentence for offence punishable under section 498A, 306 of I.P.C. The original accused Nos. 2 to 7 have been acquitted for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of I.P.C. It is this part of the judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in S.C. No.121/2006 is questioned in this revision application filed by the present petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly points out that original accused no.1. i.e husband of deceased Pranita namely Sanjay had filed criminal appeal No.104/2007 challenging conviction under 4 section 498-A, 306 of Indian Penal Code before this Court. Said appeal has been admitted by this Court and appellant therein has been released on bail. 3. I have heard learned counsel Mr. Gaikwad for the petitioner. This is a revision application filed by the petitioner under section 397 read with section 401 of the Cr.P.C. I have taken into account scope of the revisional court. Mr. Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that evidence of P.W. No. 1 to P.W. No. 4 adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for convicting the respondents No.1 to 6 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code. He further submitted that on behalf of the prosecution, evidence of p.w.1 complainant i.e. father of deceased Pranita is adduced. Evidence of father of deceased Pranita is being corroborated by evidence of mother of deceased Pranita. He also points out evidence of p.w.4 Madhav, uncle of deceased Pranita. According to him, on behalf of the prosecution, sufficient material is brought on record to show that death of deceased Pranita is not suicidal. On the point of unlawful demand and cruelty, according to him, material is brought on record by the prosecution with the court below and court below ought to have convicted the respondents No. 1 to 6 for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 306 r / w 34 of Indian Penal Code. He points out marriage of deceased Pranita with Sanjay was solemnized in the year 1999 and 5 the incident occurred on 8th September, 2004 i.e. within period of seven years. According to him, presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act is available. He also points out provision laid down under section 113-B. Presumption available to the prosecution under section 113-A is pertaining to abetment to suicide by a married woman. Under section 113-B is a presumption as to dowry death. 4. I have seen finding of the trial court, appreciation of the evidence and consideration in relation to presumption available under section 113-B of the Evidence Act. Trial Court has considered evidence of P. W. No. 1 to 4. On behalf of the defence, D.W.1 and D.W.2 have been examined. Trial court has noticed document Exh.44 which is placed on record. Trial court opined that deceased Pranita desired to take education even after her marriage. Demand of Rs.50,000/-, non fulfillment and harassment on that account is also considered by the trial court while appreciating the evidence of prosecution witnesses. Trial court opined that details of harassment by original accused Nos. 2 to 7 have not been furnished by the complainant/present petitioner. On appreciation of the evidence trial court in paragraph No.17, recorded its opinion that there is no material available against respondents No. 2 to 7, entailing conviction for the offence punishable under section 306, 498-A r/w 34 of the I.P.C. In earlier paragraphs trial court has considered death of deceased Pranita. Trial court found that premises i.e room 6 where dead body was found was latched from inside. After appreciating material on record, trial court reached to a conclusion that there is no material against the respondents No. 2 to 7 for the offence punishable under section 306, 498-A r/w/ 34 of IPC and that is how these accused persons i.e. respondents No. 2 to 7 have been acquitted. 5. Learned A.P.P. Mr. Sonwane has also pointed out observations of the trial court from the judgment, copy of which is on record. 6. In view of the material brought on record, findings of the trial court and taking into account scope of the present revision application, filed against respondents No. 2 to 7 (in Sessions Case), in my view no case for interference, converting acquittal to conviction is established. 7. It is made clear that these observations are confined to the case of respondents No. 1 to 6 alone. This Court is conscious that criminal appeal filed by original accused No.1, Sanjay is pending. Said appeal shall be considered, heard and disposed of in accordance with the provisions of law. 7 8. Criminal Revision Application stands dismissed. No order as to costs. ( S.B.DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. aaa/113.07 ...