PRAMILABAI BHIKARAM MORE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner ( first informant), has questioned the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment and order dated 8.1.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 56/2006 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Akola. It appears that the petitioner is the mother of deceased Urmila who was married to Gajanan Omkar Tekade on 23rd June 1999. Urmila was residing at village Mhatodi Tq. & Dist. Akola after her marriage. It is alleged that whenever she used to visit her parents, she used to complain about ill-treatment and harassment received from her husband and other in-laws. It is further alleged that there was demand for dowry from Respondent ( original accused- Respondent No.2 ). The Respondent-Damodar Shankar Tekade is uncle of Gajanan Onkar Tekade and respondent Suman @ Sumitrabai is the mother of Gajanan Onkar Tekade. It is alleged that they were also instigating Gajanan to beat Urmila ( deceased ) over demand of dowry.

(2.) It appears that considering the short evidence led by the prosecution, the learned Sessions Judge, Akola decided the case on the same day by the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) It is the grievance of the applicant that some more witnesses were also expected to be examined in the case. One Ashok Vishwasrao More was to be examined on 9.1.2004; however, the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor gave a praecipe that prosecution do not want to examine any other witness. The praecipe was given at Exh.41 by which witnesses were listed whom prosecution did not want to examine. It appears that Sr.No..8 the name of Ashok Vishwasrao More also appears. Thus, the prosecution had chosen not to examine him. That being so, it cannot be said that some more witnesses were to be examined by the prosecution. The applicant who was first informant in the case, did not apply in the trial Court nor protested before the Trial Court on the ground that the case of the prosecution ought not to have been closed on that day or that some more witnesses were essential for just decision of the case. She could have applied under section 311 of the Cr.P.C. had she insisted that evidence of more witnesses was essential for just decision of the case.