: 1 : Rev-529-09=.sxw USJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO.529 OF 2009 Ramchandra Sambhaji Salunke .. Applicant v/s. Tukaram Shankar Kadam & Ors. .. Respondents ......... Mr. J.D. Mane for the applicant Mr. Jaydeep Daundkar i/b Amit Sale for respondent no.1 to 4 and 7. Mrs. V.R. Bhosale, APP for respondent State ......... CORAM : R.Y.GANOO, J. DATE : 13th JULY, 2011 P.C. : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the applicant. The applicant is the complainant and near relative of the deceased Baban. The respondent nos. 1 to 9 faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge-I, Pandharpur in Sessions Case No.47 of 2007 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and other related offences. The learned Sessions Judge -I by his order dated 21st May, 2009 convicted the respondent nos. 1 to 7 under Section 304(II) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and each of the accused was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each. They are : 2 : Rev-529-09=.sxw also acquitted for offences such as Section 148, 323 of the Indian Penal Code and appropriate sentence is imposed. Original accused no.7 Indubai, has been convicted under Section 304(II) r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and she has ordered to undergo imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. She also convicted under Section 148, 323 and 324 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The original accused No.8 Ganesh and accused No.9 Sachin have been acquitted from all the charges. Being aggrieved by this judgment and order dated 21st May, 2009 the complainant has filed this Revision Petition. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the applicant. According to him the very act on the part of the respondents in collecting together and giving stick blows to deceased Baban, clearly indicates that they wanted to kill Baban. He pointed out that the main reason for death of Baban is fracture to skull. After having perused the impugned judgment, I am inclined to accept that on the basis of evidence placed before the learned Additional Session Judge, he has taken correct view of the matter and that no interference is required. Merely because, the cause of death is fracture of the skull that by itself is not sufficient to hold that the original accused intended to get themselves involved under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. In my view, the learned : 3 : Rev-529-09=.sxw Judge has considered the entire record in proper perspective. It is also required to be noted that the present proceedings are in the nature of criminal revision. The jurisdiction of this Court is absolutely limited. I am not inclined to exercise the said jurisdiction and interfere in the impugned order dated 21st May, 2009. 3. Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. (R.Y.GANOO, J.)