1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPELLATE SIDE, CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVN. APPLICATION NO.: 95 OF 2008 Suresh S/o Ankush Mankari, Age: 31 years, Occu.: Labourer, R/o Virgavan, Tal. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ... REVISION PETNR. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra. Through Police Station Mantha, Tal. Mantha, Dist. Jalna. ... RESPONDENT *** Mr. S. S. Patil, Advocate for the Applicant. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, Advocate for the Respondent. *** CORAM: K. U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATED: 12th OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard. Rule. By consent, rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This Criminal Revision assails conviction under section 323 of IPC in RCC 271 of 1999, recorded on 17th June, 2005 by learned J.M.F.C., Partur, slapping sentence of one year with fine of Rs.1,000/-. In the appeal, being Appeal No.41 of 2005, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna by order dated 16th February, 2008, dismissed the appeal and hence present revision. 2 3. The counsel submits, the appreciation of evidence by both the Courts, is not in tune with the evidence. That apart, the controversy between the applicant Suresh and his wife has indeed being worked, out the wife has settled second marriage, she has enjoyed her new cherished life. The next limb of submission of Mr. Patil is since the accused/ applicant is a labour, working at Mumbai, aged 31 years, the case for release, by confirming the conviction, for the period undergone, as he is in custody from 27th July, 2009. meeds cpmsoderatopm/ 4. Sangita, wife of the present accused, filed a complaint on 11th September, 1999 that the accused demanded Rs.10,000/- as a dowry and beat the wife with an iron rod, due to which she sustained injury at her nose and she was also threatened tobe drown in a well. On prosecution, based on evidence of the wife, the above said conviction came to be recorded against accused/ applicant. Considering the nature of evidence adduced and the learned Judge having inflicted maximum punishment of one year provided for offence under section 323 IPC which also contemplate requiring special reasons to do so, having lost sight thereof, requires interference. I find that the period undergone in custody i.e. from 27th July, 2009 till this day, covers more than two months in custody. There is already a lesson learnt by the accused. He lost all his reputation in his life, happiness gone to streets and now he is staying at Mumbai. Hence, order. 5. The conviction recorded against the accused/ applicant in RCC 271 of 1999 [Criminal Appeal No.41 of 3 2005] is maintained. Instead of sentencing the accused / applicant to undergo R.I. for a term of one year, he is directed to undergo R.I. for the period of two months and since he is in custody from 27th July, 2009 and fine amount is already paid, the accused/ applicant be released, if not required in any other case. Criminal Revision partly allowed in above terms. Rule partly discharged. [K. U. CHANDIWAL, J.] Dated:12/10/2009. ans/95 4 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.: OF 2009 Date of decision: 12th OCTOBER, 2009. For approval and signature THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE K. U. CHANDIWAL. . Whether Reporters of local papers ... Yes may be allowed to see the judgment? . To be referred to the Reporter or not? ... No . Whether Their Lordships wish to see ... No the fair copy of the judgment? . Whether this case involves a substantial ... No question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder? . Whether it is to be circulated to the ... No Civil Judges? . Whether the case involves an important ... No question of law and whether a copy of the judgment should be sent to Nagpur, Goa and Bombay offices? [G. F. ANSARI] PRIVATE SECRETARY TO THE HONOURABLE JUDGE