1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURTE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH:NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION NO.91 OF 2008 Vimay Bai Krushnarao Changole ..vs.. State & another =================================== CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATE: 14.10.2008 Heard Mr. Ghurde, Advocate for applicant and Mr. A.D. Sonak, A. P. P. For state. This revision is directed against the judgment of acquittal rendered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.123/2007 whereby the learned Judge acquitted accused Dinesh of offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant – mother of the victim. Learned counsel states that though the case was filed under section 306 of the Penal Code, in fact there was an angle of murder as well and his client believes that the victim was served with some sweets in which poison Endosulphan was added, as a result of which victim died two days after the consumption of sweet. Learned counsel states that this story should have been considered by the learned trial Judge since it is in the statement made by victim's mother Vimalbai on 31.12.2006. Now what the victim's mother stated to the police can not be a part of evidence of the victim's mother, and whatever she stated 2 before the court would be relevant. Learned counsel graciously made available copy of the deposition of Vimalbai for my perusal and it may be useful to reproduce the paragraph 3 of her examination in chief as under: “3] I know the accused before the Court because his house is at the back side of my house. There was no other reason to know the accused for me. On 25th December, 2006 the accused went to my house and said to Pallavi that she and he would go to Shegaon together. Thereafter she and the accused went first to Chandur Bazar and from there to Badnera. On 26.12.2006 I had returned to my house at Adgaon for making arrangement of money. That time my son Ankush told me that Pallavi was not in the house from previous day, i.e. From 25.12.2006. That day I received telephone call from police station Badnera at the telephone in the STD booth of one Khajbage. That time Pallavi talked to me. However, she did not tell from where she was calling. Then she told me that police would take to me and she gave the telephone to police personnel who was with her. Police told me that she was in police station Badnera and I should come to take her back. Therefore, on the same day I went to police station Badnera and reached there at about 1-30 to 2 p.m. That time police told me that 3 previous whole night Pallavi was at railway station Bandera and she was brought in the police station tht morning. That time Pallavi was sorrowful and under thoughts. Thereafter I brought her with me to Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Hospital, Amravati. That time she was having vomiting. Therefore, I admitted her in Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Hospital. Doctor there examined and treated her. She was complaining of pain in abdomen. On 27.12.2006 in the hospital Pallavi told me that she was having pain in her abdomen and at about 3 to 4 p.m. She asked me whether I could save her. I answered in the affirmative but then taking her in confidence I asked her as to why she was so saying and what exactly had happened. Thereupon she told me that on 25.12.2006 when she was in our house alone, the accused came there and asked her to come with him to Shegaon and that he would marry there and thereafter both of them went to Chandur Bazar and from there to Badnera. However, after they reached to railway station Badnera the accused told her that he did not want to marry her and that he would not accompany her to Shegaon. Thereafter, leaving her alone at the railway station Badnera the accused went away. Therefore, she alone stayed at railway station Badnera for the whole 4 night. As she felt that accused deceived her she got frustrated and therefore, she consumed poison.” Paragraph 1 an 2 are introductory. Paragraph 4 is about incidents after death of Pallavi. Even without referring to the cross examination it can be seen that there is no word in the evidence of Vimalbai that the accused either provoked Pallavi to commit suicide or served her with any sweet containing with poison. It is therefore, unfortunate that the learned counsel should have chosen to press statement of Vimalbai before the police, events wherein have not at all been referred by Vimalbai in her deposition before the court. No case for interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction is made out. Revision is rejected. JUDGE smp.