STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MADHUSUDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/state preferred this appeal against the Judgment and Order dated 19-4-1990 passed by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in a Sessions Trial No. 6 of 1987 recording the findings of acquittal against the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant/state, the learned trial Judge has not appreciated the facts and circumstances, as also the legal provisions in true and correct perspective and, therefore, the findings are perverse and erroneous. On the contrary, Shri khapre, the learned Counsel for the respondents/accused supported the findings of acquittal of the respondents/accused and submitted that normally the findings of acquittal are not to be disturbed by the appellate Court unless the findings are perverse and illegal.

(2.) WE heard Shri Akhani, the learned A. P. P. and Shri Khapre, the learned Counsel for the respondents/accused.

(3.) MOST of the facts are not disputed in the appeal by the defence. Deceased Aruna Pathak was residing in her own house with her brother in Gokulpeth, Locality in the city of Nagpur. She had no parents. Therefore, the brother and sister only were staying in their own house. Shri Sharad pathak the real uncle of deceased Aruna Pathak who was at the relevant time serving in Central p. W. D. , was residing in the locality known as Chatrapati Nagar. The brother of deceased Aruna viz. Arvind was an employee of Nagpur Improvement Trust. Deceased Aruna was a commerce graduate. Since the parents of deceased Aruna and Arvind were dead, it was the responsibility of their uncle Shri Sharad Pathak to arrange the marriage of Aruna.