Sou. Sushma W/O Gajanan ... vs Gajanan Narayan Chikhalwar And ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 7593 Bom

 revn.100.15(J)                       1        

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                    NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

                  CRIMINAL  REVISION  NO.  100 OF  2015

 Sou. Sushma W/o Gajanan Chikahalwar,
 Aged about 34 years, Occ-Service,
 R/o Karvianegaon,Tahsil-Shrivardhan,
 Panchayat Samiti Shrivardhan,
 District-Raigad(Alibad)                           ..... PETITIONER 

       ...V E R S U S...

  
 1. Gajanan Narayan Chikahalwar,
    Aged about 38 years,Occ-Service,

 2. Narayan Ashanna Chikahalwar,
    Aged about 63 years,Occ-Laundry, 

 3. Sou. Kamlabai Narayan Chikahalwar,
    Aged about 60 years,Occ-household,

 4. Sau. Ranjana Mallesh Ragela,
    Aged about 40 years,occ-household,

 5. Mallesh Bhumaiyya Ragela,
    Aged about 45 years,Occ-Hotel 
    Management

      Non-applicant nos. 1 to 3 R/o
      Gurudev Ward,Ghati,Tahsil-Ghatanji,
      District-Yavatmal.

      Non-applicant nos. 4 and 5 R/o 
      New Colony, Hastapur, Waghi Road,
      Boli Gali, Taradewar Marketiing,
      Warziarabad Nanded,
      District-Nanded 

 6. Sau. Sunita Gangadhar Renalwar,
    Aged about 35 years,Occ-household,




::: Uploaded on - 28/09/2017                      ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:26:02 :::
  revn.100.15(J)                                  2        

 7. Gangadhar Ramlu Renalwar,
    Aged about 39 years,Occ-Laundry,

      Non-applicant nos. 6 and 7  R/o 
      Gokunda,Tahsil-Kinwat,District-Nanded.

 8. State of Maharashtra,
      Through Police Station Officer,
      Police Station Yavatmal
      Through D.G.P.Yavatmal                           ... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri M.I.Dhatrak,  Advocate for the   applicant.
 Shri Rajesh Nayak, A.P.P. for State- respondent no.8.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.

DATED :- SEPTEMBER 26,2017

ORAL JUDGMENT

Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally

by consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2] The present revision is filed by the applicant against

the concurrent finding of the facts recorded by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Ghatanji in R.C.C.No.64/2010 dated

16/2/2013, by which learned Magistrate acquitted the

respondents from the offence punishable under Section 498-A of

the Indian Penal Code, together with the judgment and order

passed by learned Sessions Judge,Yavatmal in Criminal Appeal

No.17/2013 dated 19/6/2015 by which the learned Sessions

Judge dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the present

applicant.

3] The scope of the appeal against acquittal is limited. The

scope of revision against the acquittal is further narrower than

the appeal against acquittal.

4] Unless and until, the question of law is pointed out by

the applicant, the revisional Court should not exercise its

jurisdiction for upsetting the well reasoned judgment and order

of acquittal passed by the learned Court below is a trait of law.

5] Further though it was a State case, the State has not

preferred any appeal against the acquittal.

6] Be that as it may, the entire prosecution case was rest

upon the evidence of the present applicant Smt. Sushma. The

learned Sessions Court has rightly recorded the finding that there

is a contradiction which goes to the root of the matter in the

evidence of the complainant and her mother Laxmibai. Merely

because, the superior Court is having its other view that is not

sufficient to substitute the view taken by the Court below

especially when the views taken by the both the learned Courts

below are equal.

I find no merit in the revision and hence stand

dismissed.

Rule is discharged with no order as to costs.

JUDGE

kitey