Criminal Appeal No. 6 of 2012. Case: Ramdas Ajinath Bhandwalkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr. High Court of Bombay (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 6 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Abhijit S. More, Adv. and For Respondents: Mrs. Y. M. Kshirsagar, APP, M. S. Patil, Adv.
JudgesA. M. Thipsay, J.
IssueIndian Penal Code (45 of 1860) - Sections 306, 107
Citation2012 CriLJ 2497
Judgement DateMarch 01, 2012
CourtHigh Court of Bombay (India)


  1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant above named, purportedly, under the proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The appellant claims to be a victim, as defined under clause 2 (wa) of the Code.

  2. The facts of the case, as alleged by the appellant, are in brief, as follows;-

    1. The appellant's daughter, Jyoti, who was of 16 years age and was studying in 10th standard, was found missing on 27.12.2009. A search for Jyoti was taken, but she could not be seen in the vicinity.

    2. On 1.1.2010, the dead body of Jyoti was found floating in a well situated at about 300 to 400 ft. away from the house of the appellant. The police registered an accidental death and conducted an enquiry, as contemplated under Section 174 of the Code.

    3. Four days thereafter i.e. on 4.1.2010, the appellant lodged a report with the police, making allegations against the respondent No. 2. The appellant alleged that the respondent No. 2 used to ask Jyoti to marry him and was giving her threats. According to the appellant, Jyoti used to state this to him and others. His allegation against the respondent No. 2 was that because of the torture caused by him to Jyoti, Jyoti had committed suicide.

    4. On this allegation, a case in respect of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 506 of the I.P.C. was registered and investigation commenced. The respondent No. 2 was arrested and prosecuted.

  3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, however, held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the respondent No. 2 and passed an order of acquittal.

    It is being aggrieved by the said order of acquittal, the appellant, in his capacity as the victim, has filed the present appeal, as the State of Maharashtra, has not thought it fit to challenge the order of acquittal.

  4. I have heard Mr. More, the learned advocate for the appellant, whose emphasis is on the improper appreciation of evidence, as done by the learned Sessions Judge. According to him, the evidence adduced during trial was not properly appreciated and therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge, are not proper or legal.

  5. However, this appeal can be disposed of without going into the question of the correctness of the appreciation of evidence, as done by the learned Sessions Judge. It is because on the facts alleged, it is not possible to hold that the respondent No. 2 can be said to have abetted commission of suicide by Jyoti.

  6. The concept of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT