1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 65/2008 Shabana Parveen Javed Deshmukh & another ..vs.. State of Maharashtra thr. P. S. O. Dahihanda, Akola -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 17 th June, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Adkokar, learned A.P.P. for non applicant. 2. The revision is filed challenging the order whereby application of the applicants-original accused Nos. 2 and 3 at Exh.-25 filed for discharge is dismissed. The applicants are accused Nos. 2 and 3 and one Abdul Sadik is accused No. 1. It is alleged that applicant No. 1/accused No. 2 was having illicit relations with Abdul Sadik i.e. accused No. 1 and on account of this, applicant No. 1 left the a house of deceased i.e. her husband. 3. According to the prosecution, the present applicants share common intention with that of Abdul Sadik in giving threat to the deceased, who was suffering from 2 Tuberculosis and in depressed condition. The suicide notes are also there on record in which the deceased alleged that the present applicants as well as accused No. 1 Abdul Sadik are responsible for his suicide. The trial Judge considered the evidence on record and concluded that the applicants are not entitled to be discharged. 4. Mr. Thakkar, learned counsel appearing for the applicants, submits that the suicide notes are written approximately six months prior to the death and, therefore, the same cannot be relied upon. He further denies that the suicide notes are written by the deceased. However, authorship of the suicide notes can only be decided after adducing evidence in the trial. 5. In any case, this is not a fit case where the accused can be discharged. The revision application is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE kahale