2408crra9.08.odt 1/3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 9 OF 2008 1. SHRIKRUSHNA PUNJANI DHAKARE DONGARGAON, AKOLA .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. RAVINDRA MOTIRAM SHEGOKAR & 5 ORS. RAVIDAS CHOWK, BORGAON MANJU, AKOLA 2. SHANTABAI MOTIRAM SHEGOKAR 3. NIRMALA ASHOK SHEGOKAR 4. MOTIRAM GANPAT SHEGOKAR 5. ASHOK MOTIRAM SHEGOKAR 6. STATE OF MAH. THRU. P.S.O. .. RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. OY Kashid, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Javade, Advocate H/f Mr. SV Sirpurkar, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. DM Kale, APP for respondent No. 6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED :- 24TH AUGUST, 2009. P. C. :- 1. Respondents No.1 to 5 faced Sessions Trial No. 157 of 2006 before the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-II, Akola under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Sessions Judge vide judgment and order dated 06/10/2007 acquitted respondents No. 1 to 5. Against that order brother in law of deceased Vanita has filed the present revision application. 2408crra9.08.odt 2/3 2. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. A dying declaration came to be recorded by the Executive Magistrate Mr. Khan and the text of the said dying declaration go to show that on account of quarrel between deceased Vanita and her sister in law by name Nirmala (respondent No. 3), deceased Vanita put kerosene on her own person and put her to fire. Police Constable Mr. Sanjay had recorded statement of said Vanita in the course of investigation. However, he had not obtained endorsement of the doctor as regards mental and physical health of Vanita on the dying declaration, and therefore, his evidence is of no use to the prosecution. So far as the evidence of three witnesses, viz. Shrikrushna Dhakate, Anusayabai Kalaskar and Bhaskar Kalaskar, learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered their evidence and has arrived at a conclusion that those witnesses have not been able to bring on record cogent evidence to show that respondents No. 1 to 5 were practicing cruelty upon said Vanita and ultimately he has come to the conclusion that prosecution failed to prove charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that the text of dying declaration would goes to show that there used to quarrel between Vanita and her near relatives, and therefore, the cruelty under Section 498 IPC was made out. If one peruses the dying declaration, it goes to show that on the relevant date, a quarrel ensued between Vanita and Nirmala and even 2 to 3 days prior to the incident there used to quarrel and therefore, she poured kerosene on her own person and took fire. 4. Even if the dying declaration is accepted as it is, one cannot come to a conclusion that respondents No. 1 to 5 have treated said Vanita with cruelty 2408crra9.08.odt 3/3 and a quarrel between said Vanita and Nirmala had itself cannot be construed to come to the conclusion that Vanita was incited or go to show that Vanita was subjected to abetment as under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, for the purposes of commission of suicide. It is apparent that Vanita had lost her tamper and committed suicide by pouring kerosene and putting herself to fire. It is to be seen that the evidence of other witnesses also do not go to show that cruelty was practiced upon said Vanita. The father of said Vanita was not examined and i.e. how the learned Advocate for the applicant submitted that proper evidence is not brought on record. In my view, whatever evidence which was brought on record was not sufficient to convict respondents No. 1 to 5. Now, that respondent Nos. 1 to 5 have been acquitted in absence of proper evidence and non examination of father of Vanita by itself, cannot be a ground to admit this petition and call upon respondents No. 1 to 5 to face a trial. Considering the fact that the evidence placed before the Court was insufficient, learned Additional Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that respondents No. 1 to 5 deserve to be acquitted. That finding need not be interfered with. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed. Revision application is dismissed. JUDGE wwl