1 Cri.Revn.No.146/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.146/2010. Sitaram s/o Sahebrao Bhagwat Age: 54 Yrs. occu. Agril. r/o Matori, Tq. Shirur, Dist. Beed. - PETITIONER (Orig.Complainant) VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. 2) Sachin s/o Ramkrishna Dalvi Age: 26 Yrs., occu. Service 3) Ramkrishna s/o Bhagwan Dalvi, Age: 61 Yrs., occu. Agril. 4) Sanjivani w/o Ramkrishna Dalvi Age: 56 Yrs., occu. Agril. 5) Jitendra s/o Ramkrishna Dalvi Age: 23 Yrs., occu. Educlation Resp.Nos. 2 to 5 R/o Patoda, Tq. Patoda, District Beed. - RESPONDENTS (Resp.Nos.2 to 5 are orig.accused) ***** Mr.D.R.Jaybhar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.KS Patil, APP for State; Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Adv.for Resp.Nos.2 to 5. ----- 2 Cri.Revn.No.146/2010 CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 22nd February, 2011. PER COURT : 1) Heard learned Counsel for revision petitioner; learned APP for State and learned Counsel for respondents nos.2 to 5/accused. 2) Acquittal in Sessions Case No.60/2009 for the offence under Sections 498-A, 504, 506, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code, recorded by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed dated 2nd March, 2010, is questioned by the complainant. 3) On 23rd September, 2010, Rule was issued, Record and proceedings were called. 4) Mr.Jaybhar, learned Counsel for complainant/revision petitioner, submits that within four months of the marriage Sarika breathed her last, it was on account of ill- treatment and not fulfillment of persistent demand of Rs.50,000/- from father Sitaram. Consequently, according to him, the learned Judge should have taken into consideration the complaint/report and the evidence of father – Sitaram as also mother – Sangeeta of the deceased. 3 Cri.Revn.No.146/2010 5) The other limb of submission is, the learned Judge erred in acquitting the accused solely relying on belated lodging of F.I.R. To stress his point, learned Counsel has relied to the judgment in the matter of Amar Singh Vs. Balwinder Singh ( 2003 DGLS (Soft) 120 = 2003 (2) Supreme 155) In the said case, the learned Sessions Judge had convicted the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, based on the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence. The High court did not accede to such position as it disbelieved the prosecution witnesses and added to it was the belated F.I.R. The Hon’ble Apex Court set aside High Court’s order of acquittal. 6) Now, reverting to the factual matrix of the case in hand, learned Sessions Judge did not award acquittal on the point of belated F.I.R. alone as he has clarified, the added situation is, belated F.I.R. 7) The matter revolves to two dying declarations of the victim (Exhibits-31 and 32). In un-mistaken terms, the victim illustrated, out of anger, frustration, she has immolated herself. Even in later dying declaration, she stated that she has no grievance or complaint against 4 Cri.Revn.No.146/2010 anybody. It is not the case of the prosecution that such dying declarations were couched with any pressure or influence upon the victim. The officers recording the dying declarations were independent, ensured safety, purity and avoided any infidelity in it. 8) The victim, as could be seen, though at the tin age, within the span of four months of her marriage, breathed her last. However, she was nurtured in a different atmosphere and being a hot-temper, could not bear the situation/events of self-created trauma in her matrimonial abode, resulted in taking toll of her precious life. Evidence of mother of the deceased also unleash that the victim was hot-tempered and mother was nursing, persuasive activities. 9) Taking survey of the events, there is nothing to illustrate that immediately at the time of incident of immolation, there was any nagging, any instigation or any act of cruelty from any of the accused or in preceding night there was such event. 10) The grievance of the complainant, being father, can well be understood, he has sagged and gittered feelings, however, his feelings need not influence to put the accused/respondents in 5 Cri.Revn.No.146/2010 fetters, for no fault on their part in the victim committing immolation or suicide. There is no infirmity on the part of the learned Judge in recording acquittal in favour of the respondents/accused. Consequently, the revision lacks merit, dismissed. Rule discharged. ( K.U.CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE bdv/