1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO:144/2004
Pramilabai w/o Bhikaram More
Aged about 52 years
R/o Anakwadi Po: Akoti (Kh)
Tq & Dist. Akola.y .. APPLICANT
versus
1. State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station Officer
Akot Fail Police Station
Akot, Tq.akot Dist. Akola.
2.
Gajanan s/o Onkar Tekade
Aged about 33 years, occu: Service.
3. Smt. Suman @ Sumitrabai Onkar Tekade
Aged about 76 years, occu: household
4. Damodhar Shankar Tekade
Aged about 52 years, occu: Service.
Respondents 2 to 4 are R/o
Mhatodi Tq & Dist. Akola. ... RESPONDENTs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr Sameer Sohoni Advocate for the applicant
Mr. S Y Deopujari APP for R-1
Respondents 2 to 4 served
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 08th October, 2008
ORAL JUDGMENT :
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:57:42 :::
2
The petitioner ( first informant), has questioned the
legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order
dated 8.1.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 56/2006 passed by learned
Sessions Judge, Akola. It appears that the petitioner is the mother of
deceased Urmila who was married to Gajanan Omkar Tekade on 23rd
June 1999. Urmila was residing at village Mhatodi Tq. & Dist. Akola
after her marriage. It is alleged that whenever she used to visit her
parents, she used to complain about ill-treatment and harassment
received from her husband and other in-laws. It is further alleged that
there was demand
for dowry from Respondent ( original accused-
Respondent No.2 ). The Respondent-Damodar Shankar Tekade is
uncle of Gajanan Onkar Tekade and respondent Suman @ Sumitrabai
is the mother of Gajanan Onkar Tekade. It is alleged that they were also
instigating Gajanan to beat Urmila ( deceased ) over demand of dowry.
Further, according to the applicant, as a result of ill-treatment and
harassment, her daughter Urmila committed suicide by gulping poison
and in the result she had died at night intervening between 11.11.2002
and 12.11.2002. It appears that as a result of report by the petitioner
to the police which was typewritten by her Advocate addressed to
Station House Officer Akot Fail Police Station, Akola, crime was
registered and investigated. In the result, the respondent nos. 2 to 4
were charge-sheeted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Akola who,
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:57:42 :::
3
committed the case to the Court of Sessions Akola as accusations were
u/s 306 read with section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The charge
was framed against the accused on 6.8.2003, to which they pleaded not
guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution case, the
prosecution examined as many as four witnesses and closed the
evidence by praecipe ( Exh.42) on 8.1.2004.
2. It appears that considering the short evidence led by the
prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge, Akola decided the case on the
same day by the impugned judgment and order.
3.
It is the grievance of the applicant that some more witnesses
were also expected to be examined in the case. One Ashok Vishwasrao
More was to be examined on 9.1.2004; however, the learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor gave a praecipe that prosecution do not want to examine
any other witness. The praecipe was given at Exh.41 by which
witnesses were listed whom prosecution did not want to examine. It
appears that Sr.No..8 the name of Ashok Vishwasrao More also
appears. Thus, the prosecution had chosen not to examine him. That
being so, it cannot be said that some more witnesses were to be
examined by the prosecution. The applicant who was first informant in
the case, did not apply in the trial Court nor protested before the Trial
Court on the ground that the case of the prosecution ought not to have
been closed on that day or that some more witnesses were essential for
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:57:42 :::
4
just decision of the case. She could have applied under section 311
of the Cr.P.C. had she insisted that evidence of more witnesses was
essential for just decision of the case.
4. I have heard submissions at the Bar advanced by the learned
counsel for the applicant as also by the learned APP and perused the
impugned judgment and order. The trial Court had observed thus “It is
admitted position that accused did not demand anything during
marriage and had accepted everything that was voluntarily given to
Urmila by her parents. Admittedly she had been to the place of her
parents from Akola itself when she was brought in the hospital of Dr.
Dahankar on 11.11.2002”.
5. Looking at these observations as also the reasons assigned
for acquittal, it must be noted that applicant Pramilabai and her sons
Ashok and Vilas were interrogated by the police immediately after the
death of Urmila and the trial Court noted further that all of them have
stated that they do not have any complaint against the accused.
Thus, the allegations levelled were duly considered in the impugned
judgment. The trial Court had posed a question that if at all Urmila was
repeatedly telling her parents about the alleged incident of ill-treatment
and harassment what prevented Pramila and her sons from disclosing
such facts to the police at the earliest opportunity. There was no
explanation or answer to this question. Furthermore, it was also
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:57:42 :::
5
admitted by petitioner Pramila in the trial Court that complaint (Exh.22)
was drafted by her Advocate. It may be noted that the complaint dated
20.11.2002 typewritten in Marathi was reported to the police on
21.11.2002 at 16.40 hours. According to the applicant she had received
psychological shock after last rites of her daughter and when she felt
proper she reported it to the police on 21.11.2002. Be that, as it may,
since the complaint was admittedly drafted by her Advocate, it was
necessary for the applicant to explain delay satisfactorily in the trial
Court. My attention is also invited by learned Addl. Public
Prosecutor’s to the communication dated 2.3.2005 addressed to the
Public Prosecutor, High Court, Bench Nagpur from the Law & Judiciary
Department of the State of Maharashtra, that the Department did not
consider it as a fit case for filing appeal in the High Court.
6. For all these reasons, no interference is called for in the
judgment and order of acquittal of Respondent Nos. 2 to 4. No
ground whatsoever is made out for interference with the impugned
judgment and order. Revision is dismissed.
JUDGE
sahare
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 13:57:42 :::