1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 183 OF 2009 NAGENDRA DATTAGIR GIRI ..VERSUS.. AJAY RAM PURI AND OTHERS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. None for the applicant. Mr. A. H. Lohiya, Advocate for respondent nos1 to 3 Mr. S. S. Doifode, A.P.P. for respondent no.4 CORAM : PRASANNA B. VARALE, J. DATED : 7 th SEPTEMBER , 2011 . None for the applicant. Heard Mr. A. H. Lohiya, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. S. S. Doifode, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.4. Perusal of the record shows that earlier, the registration of Revision Application was refused for non-removal of the office objections by the applicant and thereafter, it was restored by order dated 10.02.2011. On earlier date i.e. on 09.06.2011, this Court passed the following order - “Heard Mr. A. H. Lohiya, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3. Call R & P. Place the matter for final hearing at the stage of admission after receipt of R & P.” 2 Thereafter, on 12.08.2011, the matter was adjourned to 03.09.2011 at the request of learned counsel for the applicant and today the matter is listed for final hearing. Today, when the matter was called out in the morning session, none appeared for the applicant. Hence, the matter was passed over and kept in the afternoon session for hearing. The matter was again called out in the afternoon session, but none appeared for the applicant. It seems that the applicant is not interested in prosecuting the matter. Hence, with the assistance of learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent no.4/State, I have gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record and proceedings. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, the father of the victim Vidya, had lodged a report dated 01.6.2006 at Chandur Bazar Police Station alleging therein that the marriage between his daughter Vidya and respondent no.1 Ajay i.e. original accused no.1, was solemnized on 10.05.2005. Vidya had gone for cohabitation after marriage. It was alleged in the report that accused no.1 i.e. husband of Vidya, accused no.2 Nitin i.e. brother-in-law of Vidya and accused no.3 Smt. Kamaltai i.e. mother-in-law of Vidya, started ill-treating Vidya on account of demand of amount as well as presentation articles, which were assured to be given in marriage. It was also stated in the report that the accused no.1 used to beat Vidya under the influence of liquor. She was subjected to torture and cruelty. When the brother of Vidya named Balaji @ Rajendra had been to the matrimonial house of Vidya at Jambhrun, she informed Rajendra about ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons. It was 3 also stated in the report that the accused persons were not allowing Vidya to contact her parents on telephone. Vidya used to tell about the ill-treatment whenever she used to visit her parental home on account of festivals. The applicant also stated in the report that the torture and ill-treatment caused to Vidya was so unbearable for her that it left no choice for Vidya but to commit suicide. On the basis of said report, Crime No.148 of 2006 was registered for the offence under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigating agency was set in motion. On completion of all the formalities of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Chandur Bazar. In turn, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions at Achalpur as the offence under section 306 of I.P.C. was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, on considering the evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution agency has failed to prove the offence against the accused persons and ultimately acquitted them vide judgment and order dated 08.06.2009. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, on scanning and appreciating the evidence, found that P.W.1 Nagendra, the father of Vidya, had made material improvements and tried to exaggerate his assertions. The learned Sessions Judge also observed that accused no.1-Ajay, who was working as a Broker, used to leave the house in the morning and return back in the evening, accused no.2-Nitin was working as a agent in a company at Akola and accused no.3- Kamlabai used to reside in Devi temple at Ashtoli and was serving there as a prist and as such they were away from the 4 house and as such Vidya alone used to remain at the house for the whole day. There was nothing on record to show that accused no.1 Ajay or other accused used to keep the telephone instrument in locked condition. It was observed by the learned Judge that in the fact situation of the matter, the assertion of Nagendra that accused were not allowing Vidya to have a talk with her parents, is unbelievable. The learned Judge also found that the demand of money as well as presentation articles, did not find place in the report and the statements, recorded by the police. P.W.5 Arun Konde, the Investigating Officer, has also categorically stated that P.W.1 Nagendra had not stated about these facts and as such they do not find place in the statement of witnesses recorded by him. Similar is the case of P.W.2 Vanmalabai, the mother of Vidya, P.W.3 Sunil Giri, uncle of Vidya and P.W.4 Rajendra Giri, brother of Vidya. The learned Sessions Judge found that there is no direct evidence and the witnesses have exaggerated their version and made material improvements in their testimony. The record also show that on 31.05.2006 i.e. a day prior to the report lodged by PW1 Nagendra, accused no.1 Ajay had submitted a report to Chandur Bazar Police Station that on 31.5.2006, his mother had gone to Ashtoli and at about 4.00 p.m. He had gone to bring his mother back and Vidya was alone at the residence. At about 7.15 p.m. when he returned back, he found Vidya hanging. On the basis of that report, A. D. No. 39/2006 was registered. The learned Sessions Judge further found that on 01.06.2006, P.W.1 Nagendra had been to Chandur Bazar Police Station. Police personnel made enquiry with him. At that time, Nagendra had not stated anything about the accused persons 5 inspite of asking by the police personnel. P.W.2 Vanmalabai, the mother of Vidya, also stated that on 01.06.2006 in the morning itself, she along with her husband and other relatives had been to Chandur Bazar police station and though, she saw the corps of Vidya in Rural Hospital, Chandur Bazar, no report was lodged against the accused. On the contrary, she admitted that her statement was recorded by the police after one month of death of Vidya. Similarly, P.W.3 Sunil also admitted that though on 01.06.2006 in the morning he had been to police Station Chandur Bazar and inspite of the fact that inquest panchanama was drawn and investigation was in progress, he had not raised any doubt or grievance against the accused persons. On scanning and appreciation of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring any evidence to show that Vidya was subjected to cruelty and committed suicide. The learned Judge also found that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused and as such they were entitled for acquittal. From perusal of the record and the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Achalpur, I am of the opinion that there is neither any perversity nor any illegality in the impugned judgment and order. The revision is devoid of merits and deserves to be rejected. In the result, the Criminal Revision Application is rejected JUDGE Fiwale