High Court dismissed a criminal revision application challenging an acquittal. The Court held the lower court correctly appreciated evidence and found no provable act of abetment by respondents for the suicide of the appellant's wife.
Revision Application dismissed; Rule stands discharged; Acquittal of respondents upheld.
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.
226.05Cri.Revn..odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.226 OF 2005
Harun Khan s/o. Jarwar Khan Pathan,
Age: 37 yrs, Occu. Business,
R/o. Mohiamadiya Colony, Telgaon Road,
Beed Tq & Dist. Beed. .. APPLICANT
[Ori.First Informant]
VERSUS
01. The State of Maharashtra.
02.Vijay s/o. Mohan Jadhav,
Age: 28 yrs, Occu. Business,
R/o. Balbhim Nagar, Beed
Tq. & Dist. Beed.
03. Mohan s/o. Santram Jadhav, Age: 47 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o. As above.
04. Santosh s/o. Mohan Jadhav, Age: 22 yrs, Occu. Business
..RESPONDENTS
[Res.No.2 to 4
Ori. Accused]
...
Mr.U.M.Mhaske,Advocateholdingfor
Mr.S.B.Ghatol-Patil,Advocateforthe
applicant.
Mr.A.P.Basarkar, Addl.P.P. for respondent
no.1–State
Mr.C.V.Dharurkar, Advocate for respondent
nos.2 to 4.
...
226.05Cri.Revn..odt
2
CORAM: V.M.DESHPANDE,J. DATE : 27.03.2019
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1]Heard Shri U.M.Mhaske, Advocate
holding for Shri S.B.Ghatol-Patil, learned
counsel for the Applicant, Shri A.P.Basarkar,
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
respondent No.1–State and Shri C.V.Dharurkar,
Advocate for respondent nos.2 to 4.
2]The present Criminal Revision
Application questions the correctness of the
judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th
April, 2005, passed by the learned 8th Ad-hoc
Assistant Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions
Case No. 143/2004, by which the Court below
acquitted respondent nos.2 to 4 for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 342,
306, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and Section 33 of the Money
Lending Act.
226.05Cri.Revn..odt
3
3]The First Information Report is
lodged by the present applicant – Harun Khan
Jarawar Khan Pathan. It is at Exhibit-21. As
per the First Information Report, on
01.03.2004, respondent no.2 – Vijay Mohan
Jadhav came to his house and demanded
Rs.52,000/- else the present applicant should
transfer his house, and on that he gave
abuses to the present applicant and his wife
and also assaulted on him. The First
informant states that, he will refund the
amount within 2-3 days. The First Information
Report further states that then he went to
attend his work and when he was returning and
was having tea in the Hotel of one More, at
that time respondent nos.2 to 4 came and
assaulted him and confined in one Room.
Thereafter, past mid-night, according to the
First Information Report, wife of first
informant, namely Mumtaj Begum, and others
226.05Cri.Revn..odt
4
came there at that time though the applicant
raised voice, but they told him to keep
silence. On 02.03.2004, the respondents freed
the applicant and when he was proceeding
towards his house that time one Shaikh Pasha
intimated him that his wife Mumtaj Begum has
committed suicide.
4]The Investigating Agency, after
completing the investigation, filed charge
sheet. Charge was framed against respondent
nos.2 to 4. They abjured the guilt. In order
to prove the charge, the prosecution has
examined in all 7 witnesses. PW-1 Sk.Ali
Sk.Jafar was a Panch of inquest panchanama,
who has turned hostile. PW-2 is Harun Khan
s/o. Jarawar Khan Pathan - the present
applicant. PW-3 is Jarawarkhan Amin Khan
Pathan, father of the present applicant. PW-4
is Ayyubkhan s/o. Jarawarkhan Pathan, brother
of the present applicant. PW-5 is Shaikh
226.05Cri.Revn..odt
5
Ilhai Sk. Dasthgir, brother of the deceased.
PW-6 is Yasmin Harunkhan Pathan, daughter of
the complainant. PW-7 is PSI, Subhash Gosavi,
Investigating Officer.
5]The defence of respondent nos.2 to 4
before the Court was that they were having
inimical terms with one Nizam Jainoddin,
councillor and at his behest false complaint
is lodged against them.
6]The evidence of the witnesses would
show that on the date of incident, there was
visit on the part of respondent no.2 – Vijay,
who demanded money.
7]After acquittal the State has not
filed the Appeal. It is the first informant,
who has filed the present Revision
Application before this Court. The scope of
the Revision is very limited. Normally, this
226.05Cri.Revn..odt
6
Court will not evaluate or re-appreciate the
evidence as done by exercising appellate
powers unless the perversity is noticed in
the appreciation of the evidence at the hands
of the Court below. The learned Judge of the
Court below has properly appreciated the
evidence to reach to a conclusion that it
cannot be said that there was any act or
omission on the part of respondent nos.2 to 4
to show that it could be termed as 'abetment'
within the meaning of Section 107 of the
Indian Penal Code and they can be termed as
abettor for abetting the deceased to commit
suicide. The prosecution was under obligation
to prove the charge against the accused
persons. The prosecution and/or the present
applicant cannot take advantage of any
lacunae in the defence taken by respondent
nos.2 to 4. The prosecution case stands or
falls on its own legs. In my view, the Court
226.05Cri.Revn..odt
7
below has not committed any mistake in the
light of available evidence brought on
record, for acquittal of respondent nos.2 to
4 from the charges they faced trial.
Consequently, there is no merit in the
Revision Application and hence same stands
dismissed. Rule stands discharged.
[V.M.DESHPANDE]
JUDGE
DDC
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Court below committed an error in acquitting respondents on charges of abetting suicide under Section 306 IPC when the prosecution failed to prove abetment.
Harun Khan s/o. Jarwar Khan Pathan
The State of Maharashtra
Vijay s/o. Mohan Jadhav
Mohan s/o. Santram Jadhav
Santosh s/o. Mohan Jadhav
V.M.Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court