1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision Application No. 221/2009 Sawalram Chunilal Dongre ..vs.. State of Maharashtra thr. PSO Goregaon --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. Charlewar, Advocate for applicant. Mr. Thakare, A.P.P. for Sate. CORAM:- S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED :- 26 th NOVEMBER,2009 1. This application is filed challenging judgment and order dated 02.11.2009 passed by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2008 by which order dated 05.01.2008 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.4, Gondia has been confirmed by the Sessions Court. 2. The applicant herein with other accused is prosecuted for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the report of his wife-complainant. The trial Court, after recording evidence, acquitted other accused but convicted the revisionist by its judgment and order dated 05.01.2009 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and one month respectively and 2 fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 300/-. The present applicant preferred appeal before the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge, by judgment and order dated 02.11.2009, confirmed the judgment and order passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class. Hence, this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant invited my attention to the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and submitted that the prosecution utterly failed to prove case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In the present case, the ingredients of Section 498-A are not attracted. It is further submitted that the applicant never treated the complainant-wife with cruelty. He further submitted that mere demand does not constitute offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Learned counsel further submitted that merely applicant is having illicit relation with some other woman would not establish provisions of Section 498-A of the I.P.C. Learned counsel further invited my attention to the contents of application, grounds therein and annexures thereto. Learned counsel also addressed on the scope of revision under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel also invited my attention to the deposition of the complainant as well as other evidence placed 3 on record. The learned counsel would submit that both the Courts have failed to appreciate the contentions of the applicant and wrongly convicted the applicant. The learned counsel further submitted that the applicant is in Jail from last 27 days and, therefore, this matter requires consideration. 4. I have heard leaned counsel for the applicant. Perused the contents of application, annexures thereto and also the impugned order passed by Courts below. In para 13 of the judgment, the learned Magistrate has taken into consideration the evidence, which was brought on record and also reached to the conclusion that the applicant has illicit relations with some other woman. The Court, after appreciation of the evidence brought on record, has convicted the present applicant. On careful perusal of the judgment and order passed by learned Magistrate, it clearly appears that the Court has taken into consideration evidence of Dhaniram and Nirmala Imalkar. The Court has also taken into consideration the cruel treatment by present applicant to the complainant after marriage. The Court has also recorded that after marriage, some amount as demanded by the applicant, was paid. The Court has also appreciated that there was threat by applicant to his wife that he 4 will kill her by pouring oil on her person. The Court has also recorded the finding that though applicant is married, he had illicit relation with one Meerabai. The learned Sessions Judge, on independent scrutiny of contentions raised by the applicant and also upon perusal of the evidence, in para 10 has recorded the finding. The learned Sessions Judge has upheld the findings recorded by the leaned Magistrate. There are concurrent findings of fact recorded by Courts below based upon the evidence, which was brought on record. Though, learned counsel submitted that ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are not attracted, in the present case on careful perusal of evidence, which was brought on record, all ingredients of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are attracted and both the Courts have rightly appreciated the evidence to arrived at the conclusion to convict the applicant. 5. In view of above discussion, I find no reason to interfere in the impugned orders. The revision is, therefore, dismissed. Criminal applications, if any, stand disposed of. JUDGE kahale