VISHNU LIMBA CHAVAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this criminal revision application, the applicants-accused challenge the judgment and order of conviction passed by the 2nd Ad hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalna dated 3.9.2001 in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1994 thereby convicting the applicants for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P.C. For the offence punishable under Section 306 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. the applicants are sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each i/d to suffer R.I. for two months. However, there is no separate sentence of the offence under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P.C. The conviction and sentence awarded by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 84 of 1994 is modified by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna in Criminal appeal No. 16 of 2001 by judgment and order dated 3.6.2005 and instead of sentencing to suffer R.I. for three years the applicants are sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years each. The order of fine is maintained.

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to the present criminal revision application are as follows:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicants-accused submits that there is no direct evidence in this case. The prosecution case entirely rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The courts below have overlooked the fact that all prosecution witnesses are interested witnesses and thus conveniently brushed aside the inconsistencies in evidence of witnesses and these are filled in by assumption and presumption. No cruelty of whatsoever in nature is proved by the prosecution. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is unreliable and untrustworthy and not believable. Learned counsel submits that the witnesses have narrated only two incidents of taunting and assaults over the period of 15 years of married life and finding is arrived at that deceased was subjected to cruelty as would drive her to commit suicide which does not seem to be conduct of normal human being. There are improvements in the depositions of the witnesses as compared to statement made under section 161 of Cr.P.C., as would be evident from depositions of P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.4, who is independent witness. The courts below have not considered the admission of P.W.1 that deceased was treated nicely after birth of second daughter and that she might have given consent to second marriage of accused No.1. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that no incriminating articles of whatsoever in nature were found against he accused persons. The prosecution has also failed to prove the mens rea on the part of accused persons without which no offence of abetment said to have been established. The learned counsel for the applicants, thus submits that the criminal revision application deserves to be allowed.