SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Jitendra Yallapa Pawar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 November, 2019

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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation