NAMDEO DATTURAO AMBHORE Vs. JAGANNATH BHIMRAO CHAPKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition impugns Judgment and order dated 18-12-1997 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions trial No. 140/1997, acquitting respondent Nos. 1 to 3 of the offences punishable under sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Briefly stated the relevant facts are that respondent No. 1 - Jagannath married deceased Anusayabai at Katneshwar in the month of July, 1994. After the marriage, the deceased was nicely treated. However, in the month of March, 1996, respondent No. 2 purchased agricultural land by obtaining hand-loan of rs. 10,000/- from the petitioner. 2-3 months after the loan was given, petitioner made enquiries about repayment. Respondents, however, told him not to demand repayment. He conveyed this information to Ramchandra Patil, from whom the money was borrowed. Ramchandra Patil recovered this amount from respondents. Since then, ill-treatment of deceased Anusayabai started. Deceased disclosed these facts on the occasion of Dasera of the year 1996. She was taken back by respondent No. 1 after Diwali. Again deceased visited her parents after the gap of about 2-3 months. On this occasion also, she informed her parents about the ill-treatment given to her as the loan amount was recovered by ramchandra Patil. On 27-3-1997 information was given to the petitioner by ambadas Chapke about the mishap. The petitioner and members of his family went to the scene of occurrence. After funeral, petitioner lodged a complaint against the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. On the basis of this complaint, offence came to be registered. Prior to registration of the offence, A. D. No. 11/1997 was registered. Panchanama of the scene of occurrence and Inquest Panchanama were prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The Medical Officer has prepared postmortem report showing cause of death as asphyxia due to drowning. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

(3.) Learned Trial Judge found that the evidence of witnesses in respect of ill-treatment does not inspire confidence. According to him, the death might have been accidental. In this view of the matter, he acquitted respondent Nos. 1 to 3 by order dated 18th December, 1997. This order of the trial Judge has been impugned in the present revision by the petitioner as the State has not filed any appeal against acquittal.