ORDER
D.G. Deshpande, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ingale for the petitioner, Mr. Pradhan for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and learned A.P.P. for the State/respondent. This revision is filed by father of deceased Suvarna alias Jyoti against order of acquittal passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur (B.T. Harwade) acquitting the respondents/accused of the offences under section 498-A, 304-B, 306 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out that deceased Suvarna was married to accused No. 1 on 3-6-1993, that she delivered a male child on 2-6-1994 and that thereafter she resided at her father’s house for 6-7 months, that in January she returned back to her husband’s house and committed suicide by hanging her in her house. On the complaint lodged by present petitioner, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were prosecuted for the aforesaid offences, wherein prosecution has examined in all nine witnesses and also relied upon suicide note written by deceased Suvarna.
3. Counsel for the petitioner pointed out from the judgment of the trial Court that this important piece of evidence i.e. suicide note Exhibit 20 and hand writing expert’s opinion proving that this note was written by deceased Suvarna, was not at all considered by the trial Court and this has resulted in utter failure of justice. He also pointed out that evidence of the witnesses who were related to deceased Suvarna was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that they are interested witnesses. He drew my attention to Paragraph No. 15 of the judgment wherein trial Court has noted presence of those witnesses in Court on the date of judgment, and inference was drawn by trial Court from their presence in the Court on that day.
4. On the other hand it was argued by Mr. Pradhan that this Court, sitting in revisional jurisdiction, cannot convert findings of acquittal into conviction. Mr. Pradhan relied upon certain judgments of the Supreme Court reported in 1) Akahi Ahir & others v. Ramdeo Ram, 2) K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh & another, 3) Mahendra Pratap Singh v. Sarju Singh & another, 4) Satyendra Nath Dutta & another v. Ram Narain, 5 Pakalapati Narayana Gajapathi Raju & others v. Bonapalli Peda Appadu & another and 6 Bansi Lal & others v. Laxman Singh, and pointed out that from the judgment of the trial Court it could not be said that there was manifest illegalities in the reasoning given by trial Court or the judgment was perverse. My attention was also drawn by Mr. Pradhan and learned A.P.P. to paragraph No. 17 of the Judgment wherein the trial Court has considered other letters written by Suvarna, written by petitioner to respondent No. 1, and the findings given by trial Court.
5. It is true that as has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments that this Court should only, in exceptional cases, interfere in case of acquittal. However, it cannot be said that there is total bar of prohibition on the powers of this Court sitting in revisional jurisdiction. If impugned order is perverse or is suffering from glaring defect or manifest illegalities, the Court can, in suitable case, certainly interfere.
6. Applying this criteria, if the judgment of the Sessions Court is considered it is clear that the learned Judge has failed to consider the importance and significance of the suicide note. It is true that in paragraph No. 13 of the judgment, he has rejected this letter Exhibit 20 as of no consequences because there is no demand of gold, silver or cash of Rs. 60,000/- or any harassment to deceased Suvarna.
7. Admittedly, Suvarna committed suicide within three years of her marriage. The presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act, has also not been considered by the trial Court nor evidence of the prosecution scanned and scrutinised with reference to section 113B of the Evidence Act. Secondly, not considering suicide note Exhibit 20 in proper perspective when the writing of Suvarna was proved by her father as well as by hand writing expert, and discarding the said suicide note, not considering language of the suicide note and the tone and tenor of the said letter Exhibit 20 can only positively indicate that the Sessions Judge did not at all apply his mind to the important piece of evidence that was tendered by the prosecution, and therefore, on this ground itself the judgment has to be considered as perverse judgment. Thirdly, in paragraph No. 17 of the judgment, the Sessions Judge had considered certain letters written by Suvarna and has concluded in the last line that “in view of the documentary evidence no weight could be given to the subsequent oral evidence”. This is totally wrong approach because each piece of evidence has to be considered independently and separately. There is no logic in saying that because documentary evidence does not support the prosecution, oral evidence is required to be rejected. From this particular observation and from the approach of the Sessions Judge to the whole trial and appreciation of prosecution evidence, no inference other than perversity of the judgment can be drawn.
8. Fourthly, on the date of judgment certain witnesses were present and even though the Sessions Judge has observed that they might have come to the Court out of curiosity, but has also observed that “it appears that they have come forward to give evidence only to oblige the complainant.” It might be, this observation itself, may not be sufficient to label the judgment as perverse but considering two important facts and illegalities committed by him and his approach to the appreciation of the evidence and resultant findings thereon, leads this Court to the only conclusion and that is the judg-
ment suffers from glaring illegalities and the judgment is perverse, and therefore, liable to be set aside.
9. For all these reasons, the petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. Matter is remanded back to the Sessions Court, Kolhapur for retrial. If prosecution or defence applies for recording of evidence afresh of some witnesses who are not examined earlier or for proving certain circumstances which were not proved earlier, same will be permitted by the Sessions Judge and he will decide this matter after considering each piece of evidence separately. The matter shall not be assigned to 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge B.T. Narwade who has already decided the matter. The parties to appear on 15-1-1999. Writ to be sent immediately to Kolhapur Court. Certified copy expedited.
10. Petition allowed.