16 IR 1 OF 2019
vks
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.455 OF 2019
Jitendra Yallappa Pawar and anr … Applicants
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra … Respondent
Mr. Vikas B. Shivarkar, for the Applicants.
Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for respondent State.
CORAM : N. J. JAMADAR, J.
DATE : 29th November, 2019.
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and the learned
APP.
2. This Revision Application impugns the legality, propriety and
correctness of the judgment and order dated 16 th September, 2019, in
Criminal Appeal No.345 of 2014, passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune, whereby the appeal preferred by the applicants/accused came
to be dismissed and the judgment and order dated 4 th July, 2014, passed by
the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.452 of 2012
came to be confirmed.
1/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/11/2019 30/11/2019 23:51:57 :::
16 IR 1 OF 2019
3. In Sessions Case No.452 of 2012, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge
has convicted the applicant No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections
306 and Section498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “Penal Code”), and
sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and pay fine
of Rs.2,000/- and two years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, respectively, while the
applicant No.2 was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A
of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two
years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, with default stipulation.
4. Consequent to the dismissal of appeal, applicants/accused are taken
in custody to undergo the sentence imposed upon them.
5. The applicants have preferred this Interim Application, for enlarging
them on bail during the pendency of this Revision Application.
6. The applicant No.2 is the mother of applicant No.1. The deceased was
the wife of the applicant No.1.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants urged that the suicide note of
the deceased neither contains the allegations of unlawful demand nor
2/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/11/2019 30/11/2019 23:51:57 :::
16 IR 1 OF 2019
harassment at the hands of the applicants so as to coerce the deceased to
commit suicide. According to learned counsel for the applicants, though the
deceased had adverted to diverse issues, personal and familial, in the suicide
note, yet no unlawful demand or cruelty was attributed to the applicants.
The leaned counsel for the applicants, further submits that the learned
Assistant Sessions Judge had drawn conclusion of cruelty and unlawful
demand of property, namely a constructed house and swift car on the basis
of oral testimony of the prosecution witnesses who stood thoroughly
discredited during the course of cross examination since they had made
material improvements in their version. The applicants have, thus, a very
strong case on merit. The learned counsel would urge that, in the totality of
the circumstances, the applicants deserve to be released on bail.
8. In opposition to this, the learned APP stoutly submitted that the
applicant No.1 Jitendra has been found guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for five years. The impugned judgments of the Assistant
Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge, on appeal, are based on
cogent evidence, and the reasons recorded by the learned Judges in support
of the findings are justifiable. In any event, the sentence being of five years,
which cannot be said to be a short sentence, the Revision itself may be heard
3/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/11/2019 30/11/2019 23:51:57 :::
16 IR 1 OF 2019
expeditiously, urged the learned APP.
9. Applicant No.2 Ranjana is found guilty for the offence punishable
under Section 498A of the Penal Code only and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for two years. The applicant Ranjana appears to be of
advanced age. As the applicant No.2 Ranjana has been acquitted of the
offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code, the accusation
against Ranjana is in the realm of cruelty, punishable under Section 498A of
the Penal Code. In this view of the matter the applicant No.2 Ranjana
deserves to be enlarged on bail.
10. As regards applicant No.1, though he is convicted for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code and sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for five years, yet the material on record indicates
that the legality, propriety and correctness of the conviction for the offence
under Section 306 warrants consideration. On the perusal of the depositions
of witnesses, on which reliance has been placed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, in support of the findings of cruelty and harassment in order
to coerce the deceased to meet unlawful demand of property, in
juxtaposition with the evidence of the Investigating Officer, it appears that
there is substance in the submission on behalf of applicant No.1 that there
4/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/11/2019 30/11/2019 23:51:57 :::
16 IR 1 OF 2019
are material improvements in the version of witnesses and the said aspect
warrants examination. To what extent the contents of the suicide note
support the indictment of abetment to commit suicide also requires
examination. Thus, on merits, applicant No.1 has made out a prima facie
case for grant on bail during the pendency of the Revision Application.
11. The applicant No.1 seems to have roots in the society to tie him down
to his place of abode. It is unlikely that this Revision Application can be
heard and finally decided in the immediate future.
12. Hence, the following order.
Order
i] Application stands allowed.
ii] The substantive sentence imposed by the learned Assistant
Sessions Judge, in Sessions Case No.452 of 2012, by the
judgment and order dated 4thJ uly, 2014 and confirmed by
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Criminal
Appeal No.345 of 2014, by judgment and order dated 16 th
September, 2019 stands suspended during the pendency of
the Revision Application.
iii] Applicant Nos. 1 and 2 be released on bail on furnishing
of a P.R. bond of Rs.15,000/- each and a surety in the like
amount, to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions
Judge.
iv] The applicants shall attend this Court, as and when
5/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/11/2019 30/11/2019 23:51:57 :::
16 IR 1 OF 2019
directed, for the purpose of hearing of this Revision
Application.
V] Application stands disposed of.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
6/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/11/2019 30/11/2019 23:51:57 :::
