1 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION NO.275/2010 ( Bhimrao Ukandji Thorat Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. CP Patil Adv. h.for Mr.US Patil, Adv. for Applicant; Mr. PP More APP for State. Mr.GP Shinde, Adv. For Resp.Nos. 2 to 4. *** CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 13 th JUNE, 2011. ... 1) Heard finally. 2) The shattered complainant, feeling aggrieved by death of Chandrakala, who expired on 13.12.1998 by consumption of Indosulfon, feels that the acquittal recorded in Sessions Case No.115/2005 dated 28.7.2010, does not depict the correct legal position. 3) Having gone through the evidence and appreciation recorded by the learned ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge-2, Nanded, I do not see any perversity in the order or that the evidence is not considered in the proper perspective. There was no reason to attract infraction of Section 306 of IPC, as the immediate incident of nagging or frustration or harassment has not surfaced. PW 2 in fact, has accepted on occasion that during life time of Chandrakala was happy in her matrimonial home. Considering these aspects, the observation and subsequently recording of the acquittal by the learned Judge, does not call for any interference. The revision lacks merit, dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/