Bombay High Court
Krishna S/O Adkoji Janbandhu vs The State Of Mah. Thru Pso ... on 7 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 revn312.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.312/2006
Krishna s/o Adkoji Janbandhu,
aged about 53 years, Occ. Service,
r/o Durgapur, WCL Colony,
Dist. Chandrapur. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra through
PSO Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur.
2. Daulat s/o Chintaman Shimpi,
aged 31 years, Occ. Service.
3. Chintaman s/o Sama Shimpi,
aged 57 years, Occ. Cultivation.
4. Sou. Kamlabai w/o Chintaman Shimpi,
aged 50 years, Occ. Household,
5. Ku. Sarita d/o Chintaman Shimpi,
aged 23 years, Occ. Household,
Nos. 2 to 5 r/o Dongargaon,
Tq. Sindewahi, Dist. Chandrapur. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. R. M. Daga, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. I. Damle, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- AUGUST 8, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision against acquittal filed by the Krishna
Adkoji Janbandhu, father of the deceased Kavita. The judgment
and order of acquittal is passed by 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.104/2005 on 29.07.2006.
2 revn312.06.odt
By the said judgment, the non applicant nos. 2 to 5 are acquitted
of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34
of the IPC.
2. I have heard Mr. R. M. Daga, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mr. I. Damle, learned A.P.P. for non applicant-State.
Learned counsel for non applicant nos. 2 to 5 chose not to remain
present when the matter was called for hearing.
3. Non applicant nos.2 to 5 were prosecuted by Police
Station, Sindewahi for the offence punishable under Section 306
read with Section 34 of the IPC. According to the prosecution case,
on 07.04.2005, Kavita, daughter of the present applicant
committed suicide by jumping into the well situated in front of the
house of non applicant nos.2 to 5. According to the prosecution,
some chits were found in the clothes on the person of the deceased
in which she alleged that she was ill treated since 2003 and they
were defaming her.
4. On receipt of the information from the original accused
no.2, police recorded accidental death proceedings being AD No.
12/2005. The matter was investigated. The learned Court below,
3 revn312.06.odt
in my view, has correctly found that the case of the prosecution
which is based on the suicide note was not duly proved as the
panch witness Indira (PW5) has turned hostile. Further, except
the father, the the other prosecution witnesses are not stating that
the deceased was not mentally sound. The learned trial Court has
found that the evidence as brought on record is too short to prove
the offence of abetment to commit suicide.
5. The scope of interference in exercise of the revisional
jurisdiction is very limited and unless there is perversity or glaring
illegality committed by the appellate court, the revisional court
should not exercise revisional jurisdiction and that too against the
order of acquittal. In this context, useful reference can be made to
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vimal Singh vs.
Khuman Singh and anr,; 1999 CR.L.J. 16.
In that view of the matter, I find no merit in the present
revision. The same is therefore dismissed.
(V. M. Deshpande, J.)
kahale
