MADHUKAR S/O BALIRAM DURUGKAR v. SARANG S/O BHEDIRAM KHEDIKAR AND ANOTHER

2. Learned Counsel for the applicant fairly stated that he is pressing the revision only in relation to the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as there is no legal and proper evidence in respect of other offences.

3. In support of the revision, learned Counsel for the applicant argued inviting my attention to the evidence of the parents of the deceased about cruelty that the trial Court did not see i.e. the letters written by the wife in proper manner and thus landed in error in acquitting the accused. According to him, the approach of the trial Court in the matter of appreciation of evidence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is wrong and illegal. He, therefore, prayed for remand of the matter to the trial Court for fresh trial.

4. Per contra, learned Counsel for non-applicant No.1 vehemently opposed the revision and argued that the revisional jurisdiction against the order of acquittal cannot be exercised to reappreciate the evidence and the judgment of the trial Court shows application of correct position of Law and appreciation of evidence in legal and correct manner. He relied on the following decisions.

(1) 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 884 (State of Maharashtra...Versus...Tanaji Shamrao Shalke).

(2) 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1259 (State of Maharashtra...Versus...Ibrahim Kalubhai Kazi).

2

(3) 2007 All MR (Cri) 43 (Mr. Abdul Majid Mohd. Shafique Ansari...Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(4) 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 790 (Shankar s/o Vishwanath Kolhe & Anr....Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(5) 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 250 (S.C.) (Harjit Singh...Versus...State of Punjab).

(6) 2006 ALL MR (Cri) N.O.C. 62 (Mukesh s/o Ramswarup Pashine...Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(7) 2006 ALL MR (Cri) 1296 (Ramesh s/o Asaram Dhupe & Ors....Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(8) 2002 Cri. L.J. 1080 (Dwarika Prasad Soni...Versus...State of M.P.).

(9) 2000 (4) Mh.L.J. 410 (Bhagwan Sakharam Said and another...Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(10) 2005 ALL MR (Cri) 2339 (State of Maharashtra...Versus...Chandrakant Dagdu Sherkhane).

(11) 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2437 (Deepak s/o Bhimrao Bharne & Ors....Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(12) 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 2063 (Hirabai Ramdas Vyavahare & Anr....Versus...The State, through Police Station Sarkarwada, Nashik).

(13) 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 1787 (Shamrao s/o Dadarao Jadhav...Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(14) 2008 ALL MR (Cri) 883 (Sitabai @ Sevantabai w/o Honaji Wanje & Anr....Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(15) 1993 Mh.L.J. 658 (Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and others...Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(16) 2006 ALL MR (cri) 975 (Pandurang s/o Sadashiv Pimpalkar...Versus...State of Maharashtra).

3

(17) 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 452 (Smt. Vandana w/o Shridhar Pise...Versus...Shridhar Kisan Pise & Ors.).

(18) 2004 ALL MR (Cri) 36 (Shivaji Janaba Patil & Ors....Versus...State of Maharashtra).

(19) 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 946 (State of Maharashtra...Versus...Smt. Satyabhama Pandurang Raipure).

5. I have gone through the impugned judgment and order recoded by the trial Court so also perused the judgments cited before me. At the outset, I find that initiation of the criminal offence by the prosecution in the instant case i.e. F.I.R. clearly made the prosecution case unbelievable and therefore, charges leveled against the respondent for murder etc. rightly fell to the ground. In the instant case eventually the F.I.R. was lodged by the deceased herself and therefore, it carries much weight. Careful reading of the F.I.R. shows that a day before the incident i.e. 26.12.1996 deceased - Sandhya had gone to Samartha Vidyalaya at Lakhani along with her friends to attend the function of gathering and she returned to house at 9.00 p.m. The respondent - accused got annoyed with her and abused and slapped her. On the next date i.e. on 27.12.1996 she herself set her on fire and looking to her condition respondent - husband rushed towards her and extinguished the fire by wrapping mattress to her person and in that

4

process his hands were burnt and deceased sustained burn injuries on her chest, stomach, hands, legs etc.. She was brought to hospital by the respondent - husband himself. In the first part of the F.I.R., she stated that quarrel used to take place between husband and wife as the accused used to taunt that he received less dowry in the marriage. As against this, in the cross-examination, P.W. 4 - Madhukar her father stated that he did not give any dowry in the marriage and if that is so, question of making grievance of receipt of less dowry by respondent did not arise. Thus, this evidence about demand of dowry and harassment due to that is infirm and appreciation of evidence made thereon by the learned trial Court to come to conclusion from the prosecution evidence that no offence was at all proved by the prosecution as per legal position set out by this Court as well as the Supreme Court in the judgments, in my opinion, cannot be faulted.

6. Looking to the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Chinnaswamy Reddy...Versus...State of Andhra Pradesh and another, reported in AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1788, particularly paragraph No.7, I find that no error has been committed by the trial Court in acquitting the accused person. I quote relevant portion from paragraph No.7 from the judgment of the Supreme Court (supra).

5

"7. It is true that it is open to a High Court in revision to set aside an order of acquittal even at the instance of private parties, though the State may not have thought fit to appeal; but this jurisdiction should in our opinion be exercised by the High Court only in exceptional cases, when there is some glaring defect in the procedure or there is a manifest error on a point of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice. Sub-section (4) of S. 439 forbids a High Court from converting a finding of acquittal into one of conviction and that makes it all the more incumbent on the High Court to see that it does not convert the finding of acquittal into one of conviction by the indirect method of ordering retrial, when it cannot itself directly convert a finding of acquittal into a finding of conviction. This places limitations on the power of the High Court to set aside a finding of acquittal in revision and it is only in exceptional cases that this power should be exercised. …......."

7. In the result, I find no merit in the present criminal revision . The same is, therefore, dismissed.

JUDGE

ssw

6