Revision against acquittal in sections 498A, 323, 494 IPC criminal trial dismissed. High Court upheld trial court discretion to disbelieve complaint due to witness admissions.
Revision dismissed; Criminal Revision and Criminal Application disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 360/2006 WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 1465/2008
_____________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders |
Mr. B.A. Darak, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.G. Nandedkar, A.P.P. for respondent No.1 / State.
Date :30th August, 2010
2 This revision is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna acquitting the respondent / accused of the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 494 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. Although the prosecution was initially launched by the State of Maharashtra, they have preferred not to challenge this judgment of acquittal. The complainant has come to this Court with this revision. Having gone through the impugned judgment, it is found that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalna dis-believed the case of the applicant /
2
complainant giving cogent reasons and in view of various damaging admissions given by the prosecution witnesses. The learned advocate asserted that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate should have given importance to certain statements made by the 5th witness the Investigating officer. I am afraid, the Investigating officer is unable to prove the case of the prosecution case because he is not a witness in that sense. He only comes to the Court to tell as to what he did during the investigation. His finding during investigation can not be substituted as evidence. I am not inclined to admit this revision. The revision stands dismissed.
3 In view of this, the criminal application stands disposed of.
[A.V. NIRGUDE, J.]
tsk/
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the learned trial court erred in disbelieving the complainant based on damaging admissions of prosecution witnesses.
Complainant
State
A.V. NIRGUDE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
