NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant/convict preferred this revision against the judgment and order of conviction of the learned 5th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.21 of 2004 dtd. 28/4/2004 and the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No.80 of 2004, dtd. 30/6/2004. The appellate Court maintained the conviction against the applicant/husband and acquitted his parents.

(2.) The learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that both Courts erred in law in not commenting upon the contradictory opinions of the Medical Officer performing the postmortem report and Chemical Analyzer about the cause of death. Considering the chemical analysis report, the prosecution failed to prove the exact cause of death. Since the cause of death is not proven, the applicant cannot be blamed for the alleged offences. The conviction is based only upon the partisan witnesses. The neighbours were not examined. The evidence has not been appreciated properly. The prosecution case was based on hearsay evidence. The contradiction and omissions have not been correctly appreciated. The findings of the trial Court are self-contradictory. There was no evidence of abetment to commit suicide. The abetment, as defined under Sec. 107 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') has not been established. The learned trial Court erred in exhibiting the statement of the witnesses under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure without giving an opportunity to cross-examine the Special Executive Magistrate.

(3.) To bolster his arguments, he relied on the case of - (i) Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal (No.) 1722 of 2010 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.8873 of 2008, SC, dtd. 22/2/2024, and (ii) Kashibai and Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka, Criminal Appeal No. '. Of 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8584 of 2022, dtd. 28/2/2023 :: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 149.