1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Criminal Revision No.42/2009 (Ravindra Zamnani ..V/s..Brijlal Bajaj & others) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. S.G. Loney, Advocate for applicant. Mr. M.B. Naidu, Advocate for respondent no.1 to 3. Mr. D.B. Yengal, A.P.P. for respondent no.4 - State. CORAM:- R. Y. GANOO, J. DATED:- 15 th SEPTEMBER, 2009. The respondent no.1 to 3 faced Sessions Trial No.102 of 2002 under section 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of Sessions Judge, Wardha. The learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge-1, Wardha by judgment and order dated 30th October 2008 acquitted the non-applicants no.1 to 3 of charge under section 498-A, 306 and 304 of the Indian Penal Code. This revision is filed by Ravindra, brother of Sunita – deceased, being dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 30th October 2008. Few facts necessary for the disposal of this application at the stage of admission are as follows - Respondent no.3 happens to be the husband of Sunita since deceased. Said Sunita is stated to have committed suicide in the afternoon of 14th January 2000 by hanging herself. After that the A.D. Report was filed, investigation was completed and trial was conducted against the respondents no.1 to 3 as mentioned aforesaid. In the 2 course of trial prosecution examined P.W.1 Ravikumar (brother of Sunita), P.W.3 Subhash (brother of Sunita). P.W.5 Vandana and P.W.4 Ajitkumar came to be examined as independent witnesses, they were sought to be examined in support of the case of the prosecution. The learned trial Judge acquitted the respondent no.1 to 3 as mentioned aforesaid after appreciating the evidence on record. I have heard learned Advocates on both sides. After having considered impugned judgment as well as the evidence on record I am inclined to accept the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondent no.1 to 3 beyond shadow of reasonable doubt. Learned Advocate Loney taken me through the evidence and had taken some efforts to point out the cruelty, by respondent no.1 to 3 upon Sunita. Having gone through the evidence, I am inclined to observe that the evidence recorded on behalf of the prosecution cannot be termed as cogent for the purposes of rendering the conviction to respondent no. 1 to 3. It is to be noted that postmortem with regard to dead body of Sunita was conducted and P.W.6 Vinod Nimonkar was examined with reference to the postmortem report. P.W.6 Dr. Vinod had conducted postmortem and he has specifically stated in his examination in chief that he 3 cannot definitely opine whether Sunita died due homicidal death or not. After having considered the evidence of P.W.6 Dr. Vinod it is clear that he has not been able to opine positively that the death of Sunita was homicidal. If this is so, efforts made across the Bar before this Court by learned Advocate Mr. Loney to say that death of Sunita was homicidal death cannot be accepted. No other doctor was examined in the course of evidence. Despite this there was some discussion about Sunita taking tablets to keep depression and other psychological problems under control and there is some findings about the viscera at the same time it is noticed that viscera is found without objectionable chemical substance. Learned Advocate Mr. Loney has submitted that to this extent the learned trial Judge had committed an error. After having considered the entire record, I am inclined to observe that the leaned Additional Sessions Judge arrived at right finding namely he rightly acquitted the respondents 1 to 3 for want of proper evidence. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned judgment and the application needs to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence the following order. The application is dismissed at the stage of admission. JUDGE Tambaskar