SANJAY VYANKATRAO CHADRANARAYAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant was tried for the offences under sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He was, however, acquitted of the charge under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, but was convicted for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month. The applicant filed appeal against the said conviction and sentence for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and the appeal was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola vide judgment dated 15-5-1998. The applicant challenges the concurrent findings of the two courts below in this revision.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate for the applicant urged before me that in this case, three dying declarations have been recorded which show that the applicant had burnt herself and these dying declarations by itself do not establish cruelty within the meaning of section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code; that the evidence on record is bereft of details relating to beating as also relating to imputations of chastity as against the applicant and such evidence is not sufficient to hold the applicant guilty for the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Relying upon (Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and others v. State of Maharashtra), 1993 Cri. L. J. 3019, it is urged that mere harassment is not cruelty and that the courts below on the basis of totally insufficient evidence, have convicted the applicant which calls for interference even in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. On the point of sentence, it is urged that the applicant is a Government servant and that the sentence imposed is very harsh and that in the event of the applicant being found guilty, he be released on probation. It is also stated that the applicant had tried to extinguish fire due to which his hands were burnt and that the incident took place ten years.

(3.) LEARNED A. P. P. urged before me that sufficiency of evidence cannot be examined in revision though total absence of evidence can be a ground to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction. On the contrary, according to learned A. P. P. , the evidence of P. W. 1 Dadarao and P. W. 2 Vishram which could not be shaken during cross-examination, is sufficient to bring home the guilt of the applicant under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. On the question of sentence, it is urged that no interference is called for, as the sentence imposed, by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be disproportionate so as to interfere with the same in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. He, therefore, contends that the revision be dismissed.