... 1 ... IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2000 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.361 OF 2000 Dnyaneshwar Sudam Kurkunde ...Applicant Vs. Jaydas Shankar Auti & Ors. ...Respondents Ms Sangeeta Chaudhary i/by Ms Prajakta Shinde for the Applicant. Mr. K.S. Patil for the Respondent No.1. Ms M.H. Mhatre, A.P.P. for the State. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. CORAM : A. S. OKA, J. DATE : AUGUST 23, 2005. DATE : AUGUST 23, 2005. DATE : AUGUST 23, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocates appearing for the parties. This Revision Application is filed by the original complainant taking exception to the Judgment and Order dated 20th July, 2000 by which the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 were acquitted of the offences under section 498-A and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. After having heard the Advocates appearing for the parties, I find that there is neither any material illegality or procedural irregularity committed by the learned Trial Judge. The learned Trial Judge has considered oral and documentary evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that there was no convincing evidence to show that the accused persons made demand of money from the parents of the deceased and that they subjected the deceased to curelty. It is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence in the Revision Application. Revision Application is therefore, rejected. ... 2 ... JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE