Bombay High Court
Ku Sandhya Santoshrao Salotkar vs Gajanan Ramdas Thakre & Anor on 8 August, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 revn305.06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.305/2006
Ku. Sandhya Santoshrao Salotkar,
aged about 22 years, Occ. Labour,
r/o Mouza Sonegaon, Tq. Kalmeshwar,
Dist. Nagpur, Post Office, Kalmeshwar .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. Gajanan s/o Ramdas Thakre,
aged 36 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
r/o mouza Sonegaon, Tq. Kalmeshwar,
Dist. Nagpur, PO Kalmeshwar.
2. State of Maharashtra, through
Police Station Officer, PS Kalmeshwar. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. A. V. Khare, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. R. S. Nayak, A.P.P. for non applicant no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- AUGUST 8, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard Mr. Khare, learned counsel for the applicant and
Mr. Nayak, learned A.P.P. for non applicant no.2. Learned counsel
for non applicant no.1 chose to remain absent when the matter
was called out.
2. The present revision arises out of the judgment and
order of acquittal passed by 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Nagpur in Criminal Appeal No.44/2005 on 02.09.2006 whereby
2 revn305.06.odt
the non applicant no.1 was acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 313 of the I.P.C.
3. A prosecution was launched against the present non
applicant no.1 on the complaint lodged by the present applicant.
The FIR lodged by the present applicant was culminated into the
Sessions Trial No. 449/2004. Non applicant no.1 was charged for
the offence punishable under Section 376, 313 and 417 of the
Indian Penal Code on the allegation that in between October-2003
to 10.04.2004, at Sonegaon, the non applicant no.1 induced the
applicant to marry with him and on the said pretext established
sexual relations with her. Due to that, the applicant became
pregnant. However, thereafter the non applicant no.1 refused to
marry her and further voluntarily caused miscarriage of the
present applicant.
4. After a full dress trial, the learned 9th Ad hoc Assistant
Sessions Judge, Nagpur convicted the non applicant no.1 for the
offence punishable under Section 313 of the IPC and directed that
he should suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/-. The non applicant no.1 was acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 376 and 417 of the IPC.
3 revn305.06.odt
5. As observed above, against the said conviction, non
applicant no.1 preferred the appeal bearing Criminal Appeal
No.44/2005 and by the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2006,
the non applicant was acquitted. Hence, this revision against the
said acquittal.
6. Mr. Khare, the learned counsel for the applicant submits
that the appellate Court has not appreciated the evidence correctly
He submitted that had there been proper evaluation of the
evidence, appellate court would not have acquitted non applicant
no.1 of the offence punishable under Section 313 of the IPC.
7. Scope of revision against acquittal is very limited. What
is required for the applicant in such cases is to show that the
approach on the part of the Court acquitting the accused is
perverse one and the Court has not evaluated the available
evidence or has considered the factors which were not appearing
in the prosecution case.
8. At this juncture, it would be useful to mention here that
the trial Court has acquitted the non applicant no.1 of the offence
under Sections 376 and 417 of the IPC. The applicant herein filed
4 revn305.06.odt
Criminal Revision before this Court bearing Criminal Revision
No.142/2005. Against the said acquittal, the State did not prefer
any appeal. Criminal Revision No.142/2005 is decided by this
Court on 24.11.2009 and this Court found no error in the order of
acquittal.
9. Insofar as the acquittal under Section 313 of the IPC is
concerned, even the State has not preferred any appeal against the
said acquittal. It is only the present applicant who is questioning
the acquittal. I have gone through the impugned order. From a
reading of the impugned judgment, it is clear that all the available
evidence was properly considered and evaluated by the learned
lower appellate Court while acquitting the non applicant no.1.
Merely because another view is possible, as per the settled
principles, even in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court
should not substitute its view to the view taken by the Court
below. The present is a revision against acquittal. Hence the scope
becomes much narrower than the appeal.
10. 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
5 revn305.06.odt
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
