Bombay High Court
Mrs Indubai Narayan Junghare vs Narayan Ramdas Junghare And Ors on 17 October, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:25801
1 972-CrRn-417-05.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 417 OF 2005
1. Indubai w/o. Narayan Junghare,
Age 27 years, Occu. Nil,
R/o. At Post Kalamgavan,
Taluka Risod, District Washim .. Applicant
Versus
1. Narayan s/o. Ramdas Junghare,
Age 32 years, Occu. Service,
2. Ramdas Yeshwanta Junghare,
Age 53 years, Occu. Agri.,
3. Geetabai w/o. Ramdas Juinghare,
Age 49 years, Occu. Household,
4. Parmeshwar Ramdas Junghare,
Age 26 years, Occu. Agri.,
5. Datta Ramdas Junghare,
Age 22 years, Occu. Agri.,
6. Nanda Ramdas Junghare,
Age 21 years, Occu. Agri.
All R/o. Khairkheda, Tq. Sengaon,
District Hingoli .. Respondents
Mr. P. D. Sangvikar, Advocate for Applicant;
Ms. Usha N. Jadhav, Advocate for Respondents/Accused
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 17-10-2024
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned
counsel for the respondents/accused.
2. The applicant/wife had initiated the trial against the
respondents/accused, for the offence punishable under Section
498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2 972-CrRn-417-05.odt
3. On scrutinizing the evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Hingoli, held respondents No.1 to 3/accused guilty and
convicted them, by judgment and order in R.C.C.No.202 of 2000,
dated 12.03.2003. However, in appeal, the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Hingoli, considered the facts and on appreciation
of evidence held that the allegations of the particular day of the
incident are imaginary and there was no substance in the
allegations. Hence, he acquitted the accused by its judgment and
order in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 2003, dated 29.09.2005.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the
learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the fact that it
was a mistake in writing the date. It was brought to its notice, but
it was not considered. Only on technical ground, the respondents/
accused have been acquitted.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently
argued that there are no errors of law on the face of record. The
evidence produced before the Court was correctly appreciated.
Therefore, revisional Court could not re-appreciate the evidence
under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Cr.P.C.").
6. Referring to the findings of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, she would argue that the allegations levelled against the
respondents have been falsified from her own documents. The said
documents supported the defence that at the relevant time, she
was not residing with the accused. Therefore, concocted evidence
3 972-CrRn-417-05.odt
was created and false report was filed. The applicant has no good
case. Hence, revision application may be dismissed.
7. Perused the impugned judgment and order.
8. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has discussed the
facts and arrived at the correct conclusion that from the material
placed before it, the prosecution case has been destroyed. He has
also considered the application filed before the Sub Divisional
Officer, Washim, for the custody of child, under Section 97 of the
Cr.P.C. and correctly appreciated the evidence. On appreciation of
evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has correctly
come to the conclusion that, the learned Judicial Magistrate has
incorrectly relied upon the evidence of the incident, dated
09.05.2000, which was subsequently washed out.
9. Bearing in mind the powers of the High Court under Section
401 of the Cr.P.C. and after having gone through the reasons
recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the Court is of
the view that there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned
judgment and order.
10. In the result, the application stands dismissed. Rule stands
discharged.
( S. G. MEHARE )
JUDGE
rrd
