Bombay High Court
Rajendra Ranba Adbalwar vs State Of Maha on 15 December, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
(1) crirev148.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 148 OF 2004
Rajendra s/o. Ranba Adbalwar ..Applicant
Age. 23 years, Occ. Education,
R/o. Undri (P.D.), Tq. Mukhed,
Dist. Nanded.
ig Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Non-applicant
Through P.S. Mukhed,
Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded.
Mr.Sunil V. Warad, Advocate for the applicant.
Mr.K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the non-applicant/State.
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ,J.
DATED : 15.12.2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
. Heard. The applicant/accused has filed this
Criminal Revision Application challenging the judgment
passed by the Sessions Court dismissing the appeal filed
by the applicant and maintaining the judgment passed by
the learned Ist Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge convicting
the applicant for the offence punishable under section
306 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the
(2) crirev148.04
prosecution, there was love affair between the applicant
who was aged about 20 years and deceased Savitrabai who
was aged about 15 years, at the time of the incident,
that on 16th August, 2000 at about 09.00 a.m. the accused
went to the house of the victim, outraged her modesty and
asked her to withdraw the complaint which was made by the
victim and her parents against the accused and the
accused threatened the victim that he will kill the
victim and her father, if the complaint was not
withdrawn. According to the prosecution, because of the
above act of the accused the victim consumed poison and
committed suicide.
02. The accused came to be prosecuted and after the
trial, the learned Ist Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge
found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of
the accused for the offences punishable under sections
354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and acquitted from
these offences, however, the learned Ist Adhoc Assistant
Sessions Judge found that the guilt of the accused
regarding offence punishable under section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code was proved and convicted him to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of
Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo
further rigorous imprisonment for six months.
(3) crirev148.04
03. The accused had challenged the judgment passed
by the Sessions Court in appeal, which is dismissed by
the impugned judgment.
04. Undisputed facts are that the alleged incident
is said to have taken place on 16.08.2000 because of
which deceased Savitrabai consumed poison on the same day
i.e. on 16.08.2000. According to the prosecution,
Savitrabai was hospitalized on 16.08.2000 and she was
discharged on 19.08.2000 and then she died on 21.08.2000.
The F.I.R. was registered on 22.08.2000. The conviction
of the accused is mainly relying on the statement of
Savitrabai recorded on 18.08.2000, when she was under
treatment in hospital.
05. In the judgment given in the case of Binod s/o.
Ratan Sarkar & Ors. Vs. The state of Maharashtra & Anr.,
reported in 2014 All MR (Cri.) 1216 the Division Bench of
this Court, relying on the judgment given by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State
of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2010 ALL MR (Cri.) 3245
(S.C.) has laid down that to secure the conviction of the
accused for offence punishable under section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code, it is necessary for the prosecution to
establish that the accused had an intention to aid or
instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide.
(4) crirev148.04
06. The statement of Savitrabai recorded on
18.08.2000 does not contain the certification of the
Doctor that Savitrabai was fully conscious and fit to
give the statement. The prosecution has not examined the
Doctor who attended and treated Savitrabai in hospital.
Undisputely, Savitrabai was discharged from the hospital
on 19.08.2000 and she died on 21.08.2000. The
subordinate Courts have concurrently found that the
charges levelled against the applicant/accused regarding
offence punishable under sections 354 and 506 of the
Indian Penal Code have not been proved. The prosecution
has not been able to establish that the applicant had
intention to aid or instigate Savitrabai to commit
suicide or he has abetted it.
07. Considering the above facts, the basic
ingredients necessary to secure conviction of the accused
under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are lacking
in the present case. Considering the proposition laid
down in the judgment given in the case of Binod s/o.
Ratan Sarkar & Ors. Vs. The state of Maharashtra & Anr.,
reported in 2014 All MR (Cri.) 1216, in my view the
conviction of the applicant for the offence punishable
under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is not
sustainable.
(5) crirev148.04
. Hence, the following order is passed :-
(i) The judgment passed by the Ist Adhoc
Assistant Sessions Judge, Biloli, Dist. Nanded,
in Sessions Case No.65 of 2001 on 3rd March,
2003, convicting the applicant for the offence
punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code is set aside.
(ii) The judgment passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar in Criminal
Appeal No.26 of 2003 on 23rd March, 2004 is set
aside.
(iii) The applicant is acquitted of the
offence punishable under section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code. The amount of fine paid by
the applicant be refunded. His bail bond shall
stand discharged.
(iv) The Criminal Revision Application is
allowed in the above terms.
[Z.A. HAQ,J.]
snk/2016/DEC16/crirev148.04
