Renjar Singh Deora vs Anjali @ Teena Ramsingh Devda And ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 3900 Bom

                                                                            5.Cri.Appl. 321.20.doc

S.S.Kilaje
                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 321 OF 2020

             Renjar Singh Deora                                         .. Appellant
                        Versus
             Anjali @ Teena Ramsingh Devda and Ors.                     .. Respondents

                                          ....................
              Mr. Kartik S. Garg for the Appellant
              Mr. Vikram R. Sutaria for Respondent No.1
              Mr. H. S. Venegavkar for Respondent No.2
              Ms. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the State
                                         ...................

                                               CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
                                                       MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.

                                               DATE       : APRIL 11, 2022

             P.C.:

             1.      Heard.



             2.      The Appellant herein is the complainant in Sessions Case No. 13

             of 2017. Appellant is the brother of the deceased. PW-2 is the

             complainant in C.R. No. 242 of 2014 registered at Silvassa Police

             Station.       The complaint was made against Respondent No.1 who

             happens to be the wife of the deceased Ramsingh Morsingh Devda. At

             the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses in support

             of its case.




                                                                                           1 of 4
                                                         5.Cri.Appl. 321.20.doc


3.    The learned Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar Haveli at Silvassa

by judgment and order dated 18.07.2019 acquitted the accused in

Sessions Case No. 13 of 2017. Hence this Appeal under Section 372 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.").



4.    With the help of the learned Counsels i.e. the learned counsel

for the Appellant, learned counsel for Respondent No.1 as well as

learned APP, this Court has perused the evidence of the witnesses

adduced by the prosecution at the stage of trial.



5.    The learned counsel for       Respondent No.1 has vehemently

submitted that this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the

prosecution has not proved it's case beyond reasonable doubt. That

there is no perversity in the findings recorded by the learned sessions

Judge and therefore interference is not called for.


6.    Learned counsel for the Appellant has also submitted that it is a

case of the circumstantial evidence. There is misappreciation of

evidence. That Respondent No.1 happens to be the wife of the deceased

and that there is evidence of the neighbour who has seen the accused just

a day before the incident. The accused had disclosed to the neighbour

that her husband is not keeping well and that she had asked him to visit

the temple and offer prayers. When the neighbour PW-6 visited



                                                                       2 of 4
                                                       5.Cri.Appl. 321.20.doc


the house of the accused, she had seen someone sleeping on the cot.

The accused has not offered any plausible explanation under Section

106 of the Indian Evidence Act. Upon perusing evidence and findings,

this Court is of the opinion that the evidence of PW-6 is not

appreciated in it's proper perspective and hence the Appeal deserves

to be admitted.



7.    Mr. H. S. Venegavkar, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 has

supported the case of the Appellant.



8.    In view of the above, we pass the following order:-

                                   ORDER

(i) The Appeal is admitted;

(ii) Action under Section 390 of Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 be initiated;

(iii) The learned Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar

Haveli at Silvassa shall release the Respondent No.1 on

bail immediately upon appearance before the concerned

Court;

(iv) The Respondent No.1 shall mark her presence

before the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra and Nagar

Haveli at Silvassa once in six months on the date assigned

by the learned Sessions Judge. Upon failure to attend any

3 of 4

5.Cri.Appl. 321.20.doc

two consecutive dates, the prosecution is at liberty to seek

cancellation of bail.

[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.]

Digitally signed SONALI by SONALI SATISH KILAJE SATISH Date:

KILAJE 2022.04.12 13:25:21 +0530

4 of 4