YASHWANT DEVIDAS VAIDYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondents No. 2 to 6 were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304B read with Section 34 and alternatively, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Applicant is brother of deceased Anjali who has filed present revision application. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor makes a statement that the State of Maharashtra has not filed appeal against the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for applicant and learned Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 6. Learned Counsel for the applicant contends that deceased Anjali suffered cruelty at the hands of her inlaws which led to her death.According to learned Counsel, close relatives of the victim on parental side did not take recourse to police machinery because of their hope of reconciliation between deceased Anjali and her husband. It is further submitted that the evidence in the form of postmortem notes was not properly appreciated by the learned trial Judge as the cause of death was mentioned as hanging which may be suicidal or homicidal. He contends that despite adequate evidence on record, learned trial Judge acquitted the accused for serious offences. Learned Counsel for the applicant took me through evidence on record and contended that the impugned judgment and order suffers from infirmity and the prosecution ought to have resulted into conviction of the accused.

(3.) Learned Counsel for accused/Respondents No. 2 to 6 has supported the impugned judgment and order and he contends that in the medical evidence of doctor who conducted postmortem examination, there was no suggestion regarding any alternate possibility for cause of death although hanging may be homicidal or suicidal. It is contended that normally when the cause of death is mentioned as hanging, it is suicidal.