SANJAY SUKHEDO TELORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for applicant and learned Addl.P.P. appearing for Respondent-State. This revision application impugns the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai, in Appeal No. 71 of 2012 dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant against the judgment of Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in sessions Case No. 779 of 2011. The applicant has been convicted by the learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge for offence punishable under Section 307 of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 5000/- and in default to suffer S.I. for six months. The learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Sejpal has submitted that if this Court is inclined to hear the revision application finally, the applicant may not press for application No. 246 of 2013 for bail.

(2.) After having gone through the evidence of P.W. 1, it was indicated to learned Counsel Mr. Nitin Sejpal that the matter can be heard finally today as it cannot take more than 10 to 15 minutes to decide the matter finally. The application No. 246 of 2013 is, therefore, not pressed.

(3.) As far as the revision application is concerned, the case of the prosecution was mainly based on evidence of P.W. 1- the injured. P.W. 1 is married and the applicant is also married. While the appellant-applicant and his wife used to sell vegetables, the applicant developed relations with P.W. 1. There was long standing affair between P.W. 1 and the applicant. Over a period of time, the wife of applicant and husband of P.W. 1, both came to know about affair. The other family members of P.W. 1 and the applicant also came to know about the affair between P.W. 1 and the applicant. P.W. 1 was asked by her husband to stop meeting the applicant and accordingly, P.W. 1 suspended her meeting with the applicant. The applicant, therefore, felt aggrieved and he was annoyed over the conduct of P.W. 1.