{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.397 OF 1999 Somling s/o Nagappa Mendole Age-55 years, Occ-Agril R/o Kasarbalkunda, Tq-Nilanga Dist-Latur APPLICANT VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Through the police station, Kasarshirsi, Tq-Nilanga, Dist-Latur 2. Shivputra Bandappa Bhusnure Age-26 years, 3. Dayanand Bandyappa Bhusnure Age-29 years, 4. Bandappa Sangram Bhusnure Age-55 years, 5. Kamalabai w/o Bandappa Bhusnure 6. Jagdevi w/o Dayanand Bhusnure Age26 years, All R/o Devi Hallali, Tq-Nilanga, Dist-Latur RESPONDENTS ....... Mr. D.A.Mane h/f Mr.Milind Patil, Advocate for the applicant Mr. D.V.Tele, APP for respondent State MR.Pravin G.Patil, h/f Mr.R.N.Dhorde, Advocate for R-2 to 6 ....... {2} [CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.] DATE: 22nd June 2010 PER COURT: 1. By the present revision application, the applicant, original complainant, has challenged the order dated 06.09.1999 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nilanga, Dist-Latur in Sessions Case No.10/1998. By the said order, respondents No.2 to 6 were acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge from the offence punishable u/s 304 (B), 498 A and 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. It appears that Rule was issued in this revision application on 20.06.2003. 3. Heard learned counsel for applicant, learned APP and learned counsel for respondents No.2 to 6. With the assistance of learned counsel, perused the impugned judgment and order. It appears that before the lower court, father of the applicant and his two uncles were examined to prove the alleged cruel treatment meted out to deceased Rekha at the hands of respondents No.2 to 6. Perusal of the impugned judgment discloses that marriage of deceased Rekha was performed with respondent No.2 prior to 2 and ½ years of the incident. Learned lower court, in para 15 of the impugned judgment, has discussed that during the period since {3} marriage of the deceased with respondent No.2, there were occasions of two Deewali festivals. It is observed by the lower court that on perusal of the complaint lodged by Rekha with her parents, which finds place in the depositions of PW-2 to 4 coupled with the contents of the FIR (Exhibit-51), the testimony of the said witnesses, in respect of ill treatment to the deceased by respondents No.2 to 6 on the point of illegal demand is not trustworthy and hence the lower court has discarded that there was any harassment to the deceased and has held that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. So far as allegations in respect of offence punishable u/s 304 B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are concerned, it is obvious that these two offences cannot run together. As for the offence punishable u/s 306 of the IPC, there shall be presence of ingredients of instigation to commit suicide while the main ingredient of the offence punishable u.s 304-B requires that the death should be occurred within a period of 7 years of the marriage and that should be an unnatural death, in such cases the presumption lies with the prosecution and the defense has to rebut the same. So far as death of deceased Rekha is concerned, the same is unnatural as her body was found in a well on 12.11.1995. Similarly, the marriage of respondent No.2 with deceased had taken place 2 and ½ year prior to the alleged incident. However, for the reasons stated in para No.15 to 18 of the {4} impugned judgment, the evidence as regards harassment by respondents No.2 to 6, is discarded by the learned lower court. Thus, perusal of the impugned judgment and order does not disclose any perversity or that the evidence on record is not properly appreciated by the lower court. 5. In revision application, scope of inquiry is very limited. The scope of inquiry is limited to the extent as to whether the evidence led before the lower court is properly appreciated or not or whether there is any illegality in marshaling the evidence. After going through the documents and evidence on record, I do not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and order and hence, no interference is required in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the revision application is liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision application stands dismissed as the same is devoid of any merit. Rule stands discharged. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] drp/B10/crirev397-99