.(1). IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.95 OF 2006 Laxman Pandurang Pawar, Age : 50 yrs, Occ.NIL, R/o. Kasbe Vani, Vishram Baug, Tal. Dindori, Dist - Nashik. ..Applicant. -Versus- State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. ... Mr.Ujwal Agandsurve, Adv. h/f. Mr.A.D.Avhad, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.A.S.Shitole, APP, for the State. ... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 21st November, 2008. DATED : 21st November, 2008. DATED : 21st November, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant - orig.accused No.2 and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 31.7.2004 the learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik convicted the applicant and two others in Sessions Case No.168 of 2002. They came to be convicted under Section 342 r.w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. By the very same judgment and order the learned .(2). Sessions Judge acquitted the original accused No.1 i.e. son of the present applicant. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order of conviction, Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2004 came to be preferred by the three accused before the Sessions Court at Nashik. The learned Sessions Judge confirmed the conviction of all the three accused. Being aggrieved, this Revision has been preferred by the applicant - orig.accused No.2. 3. The brief facts of this case are as under :- 3A. The complainant is the daughter of the present petitioner. On 7th June, 2001 the complainant got married against the wishes of her parents. Thereafter she went to the house of the in-laws at Dhakambe for cohabitation. Six months thereafter on 24.12.2001, her father i.e. present applicant and her cousin brother Vijay Pawar came to her matrimonial house and they informed her that her mother was unwell and she should accompany them to meet her mother. Accordingly she accompanied them. On reaching her parental home, the complainant found that her mother was .(3). indeed ill. After meeting her mother, the complainant told her father that she wanted to return back to her matrimonial house. However, her father, her maternal aunt and her husband told her not to return back to her husband’s house. Thereafter her maternal aunt and husband of aunt took her to their village Sarsale. After few days at Sarsale, the aunt and her husband took her to hospital at Borgaon in order to perform an operation. The complainant has stated that she tried to run away but as her aunt was with her all the time, she did not succeed. She has also stated that her aunt had also beaten her. 4. It is seen that the only role attributed to the applicant is that he had gone to the matrimonial house of the complainant who is his daughter and informed her that her mother is unwell and hence she should accompany him to meet her mother. It is not the case of the complainant that her mother was not unwell and that the applicant had made a false representation to her by stating that her mother was unwell and thus induced the complainant to accompany him. It is the categorical case of the complainant that her .(4). mother was indeed unwell. Hence, it cannot be said that her father i.e the present applicant brought the complainant to the parental home under false pretext. It is seen that thereafter the maternal aunt and her husband took her to their village i.e. village Sarsale. It is not the case of the complainant that she was forcibly taken to village Sarsale. It is not even her case that her father took her to Sarsale or forced or threatened her to go to Sarsale. It appears that the complainant went to village Sarsale of her own free will. Thereafter it appears that her aunt and her husband did not allow the complainant to go to her matrimonial house. The complainant has stated that her aunt has beaten her and as her aunt was with her all the time, she could not run away. As far as this aspect is concerned, it is seen that the applicant had not accompanied his daughter to Sarsale. He was residing at village Wani whereas the maternal aunt and her husband were residing at village Sarsale. No role is attributed by the complainant to her father in respect of being detained at village Sarsale. The role is attributed only to the maternal aunt and her husband. All these facts have not been .(5). properly considered by the learned Sessions Judge as well as the trial Court. Looking to the fact that no role has been played by the applicant which would implicate him in a case under Section 342 of Indian Penal Code, I am inclined to set-aside the conviction of the applicant. 5. In the result, Criminal Revision Application is allowed. Rule is made absolute. The judgment and order dated 31st July, 2004 passed by the learned 5th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.168 of 2002 and the judgment and order dated 9th November, 2005 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nashik in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2004 are set-aside. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. Fine amount, if any, paid by the applicant shall be refunded to him. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)