The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for convincing evidence in cases of domestic violence and the significance of the dying declaration in determining the guilt of the accused.

M.T. Joshi, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned APP for respondent No. 5 - State. None present for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, though served. Aggrieved by recording acquittal of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from the offences punishable under Section 498A, 304B read with34 of Indian Penal Code by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Biloli, Dist. Nanded in Sessions Case No. 12 of 1996, present Revision Application is filed by the original complainant.

2. Present revision applicant is father of the deceased. According to him, the deceased - Laxmibai had married to respondent No. 3 - Narsing about two years prior to her death. Laxmibai died on 9th October, 1995 due to consumption of poison. In the circumstances, the complaint was filed on the same day by present applicant i.e. PW 2 - Balaji @ Balu. In the complaint, he reported that deceased - Laxmibai was treated well by the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 in their joint family for a period of 46 months. However, thereafter, she returned to his home and complained that the respondents used to make demands of luxury items like fan, cot, mattress, wrist watch, tape recorder etc. At that time, the complainant PW 2 - Balaji gave understanding that he was poor and was not able to even repay the amount which was taken by him from others as a loan for marriage of the deceased. In the circumstances, he sent the deceased to her matrimonial home. However, thereafter, against the ill-treatment was continued. Therefore, PW 2 - Balaji went to the house of the respondents, gave understanding to them and returned back.

Thereafter, however, respondent No. 1 - father-in-law of the deceased started making sexual advancements against her. The deceased complained about the same to PW 2 - Balaji. He, therefore, took back the deceased to his home. The deceased resided there for about two months. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 -father-in-law of the deceased came at the house of the PW 1 -Balaji with some other relatives. They assured that the deceased would not be ill treated in future. Therefore, in the presence of the reputed persons, on the undertaking of respondent No. 1, the deceased was sent back to the respondents' house. However, within 45 weeks thereafter, the deceased died due consumption of poison. Thereafter, the offence came to be registered and the respondents were prosecuted.

3. Before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in all, eight witnesses were examined. Out of them, PW 2 Balaji, father of deceased and PW 4 Shivaji, brother of deceased are the material witnesses. PW 2 - Balaji did not depose before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge regarding any specific articles which were demanded by the respondents. He merely deposed that the respondents were demanding articles and were ill treating the deceased on that count. Further, he deposed that respondent No. 1 - father-in-law of the deceased started maltreating her and made demands for illicit relations.

4. As against this, PW 4-Shivaji deposed that in the midnight, respondent No. 1 actually committed rape on the deceased and this fact was narrated by the deceased to him. Despite this, when respondent No. 1 came to the house of the applicant, the deceased was again sent back. This statement of PW 4 -Shivaji is against the case of the prosecution, as detailed supra and there is improvement over the statement made by him to the police. In the cross-examination, PW 4 Shivaji deposed that he had made specific statement before the police, however, there is material omission.

5. Since the case was based on oral dying declaration of the deceased made to these two witnesses and as no convincing evidence was brought on record, as detailed supra, learned Addl. Sessions Judge extended benefit of doubt to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and acquitted them.

6. In the present Revision Application, finding that a reasonable and probable view has been taken by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in my view, no interference in the impugned judgment is warranted. Criminal Revision