1 Criminal Revision Application No.260/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.260 OF 2010 Ashroba s/o Rambhau Avhad ... APPLICANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Miss Rashmi P. Gaur, Advocate for applicant Shri N.B. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 Shri S.S. Rathi, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4 ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 14th February, 2011 PER COURT : 1. Petitioner filed private Complaint No.49/2009 before learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Parbhani against three persons (respondents 2 to 4) claiming that Rambhau, father of petitioner, was done to death by the respondents and hence, prosecution in terms of infraction of Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was sought. The learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, issued process, statements of few witnesses were recorded. 2 Criminal Revision Application No.260/2010 2. An application seeking discharge below Exhibit 5 was moved by the respondents. The learned Sessions Judge allowed the discharge application, legality of which is questioned by the complainant/ the petitioner. 3. The learned counsel informs that the death of two persons in suspicious manner should not go unheard and unattended. The laxity on the part of police machinery in unearthing the culprits has resulted in miscarriage of justice to the poor applicant/ petitioner,w ho lost his father. Counsel submits, the circumstances of suicidal death attributed to Anshiram could not be believed to be so as the spot panchanama rebells to the situation as the floor is around 38 inches up, and without any material it could not facilitate for Anshiram to hang himself to the tree and throw away the supporting material. Counsel submits, at the wee hours, around 4.00 a.m. against no brawl could exist between Anshiram and Rambhau to take toll of precious life firstly Rambhau and then committing suicide. She urged, with all certainty, it was these respondents who ensured a game plan, which they indicated 15 days prior to the incident and activated the same. Counsel has again lashed investigation with calculating approach of faulty investigation. 3 Criminal Revision Application No.260/2010 4. It may be, the investigator has failed in discharge of the obligation. However, the learned Sessions Judge was dealing with discharge application, within the parameters of material placed before him to infer and draw whether there is any actionable material to proceed against the accused or a case within the bracket of “No discharge” in terms of section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code is made out. 5. The learned Sessions Judge, after analysing the history of litigation, has from para 6 onwards, gone through the statements of petitioner Ashruba, has gone through the evidence collected by the police during course of investigation. ‘A’ Summary report was placed, which indicated that investigator could not collect any incriminating evidence against the respondents/ accused. On the other hand, the investigator informed, the respondents/ accused were present at the material time at some other places when Rambhau was killed or Anshiram committed suicide. It was suggested or rather revealed that Anshiram may have killed Rambhau and subsequently he has committed suicide due to repentance or fear of arrest. 6. Analysis and verification of post mortem report of Anshiram portrait that there was a ligature mark which was below 4 Criminal Revision Application No.260/2010 neck and lower in the depth at the back side, which strongly suggested and lead to traces that Anshiram had died only due to asphyxia which was the net result of hanging. It is curious, in the post mortem report no injury marks on the body of Anshiram were noticed which was sufficient to suggest that there was no altercation or any may-hem with said Anshiram. 7. No error on assessing the material by the learned Sessions Judge, hence no interference. 8. Before parting, the petitioner may approach the Higher Authorities of the police to put up his grievance and seek a redressal of re-investigation through specialised agency. Revision dismissed. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/crra260.10