JUDGMENT :

[S.G. Mehare, J.]

1. The petitioner/father of the deceased has preferred the present revision impugning the judgment and order of acquittal of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Omerga, in Sessions Case No.89 of 2004 dated 21.04.2007.

2. The respondents nos.2 to 5 were tried for the offences punishable under Section 302, 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. The brief facts of the case may be summarised that the respondents and the deceased hailed from the same village. The deceased married respondent no.1. The deceased had marital disputes. She died within six months of her marriage. Due to the dispute, the respondents went to reside at Omarga. The deceased was living alone in the house of the respondents. On the day of the incident, there was the harvesting of the jowar in the field where the incident happened. The incident occurred on 27.10.2004 at about 1.30 pm. in the field.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would vehemently argue that the learned trial court did not appreciate the oral as well as the documentary evidence correctly. Hence, the Court erroneously concluded the acquittal. The learned Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the three statements of the deceased as to the cause of her death. Though the statements were consistent and free from variations about the allegations against the accused, the learned Sessions Judge unnecessarily gave weight to the evidence of the defence witnesses without testing their credibility and veracity correctly. Their testimony was unreliable and unbelievable. Impugned judgment is without sound reasons and purely based upon assumptions and presumptions. The learned Additional Sessions Judge did not consider the proved facts which were sufficient to hold them guilty.

5. In addition to the above arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the case of Satyajit Banerjee and Ors Vs. State of West Bengal and Ors, 2005 Cri.L.J. 648 and argued that the High Court can not direct the trial Court to hold the retrial. However, the Court has to direct the trial court to rewrite the judgment. He further relied on the case of S Sarubai Laxman Bhokare and Ors Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 Cri. L.J. 1866 and argued that the learned Judge disbelieved the statement as to the cause of death led by the deceased on flimsy grounds. Minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in such statements are not grounds to discard the statement. Relying on the case of Ganpat Bakaramji Lad Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2018 ALL MR (Cri) 2249, he would argue that the absence of endorsement about the fitness of the declarant and reading over the dying declaration to the declarant does not by itself render the dying declaration unacceptable. He referred to the evidence led by the prosecution on record and finally argued that the impugned order is erroneous, improper and incorrect. Hence, it may be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2, 4 and 5 relying on the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in Appeal (Crl.) 808 of 2002 dated 13.08.2002 argued that in exercise of revisional jurisdiction against an order of acquittal at the instance of private party, the court exercises only limited jurisdiction and should not constitute itself into an appellate court which has much wider jurisdiction to go into question of facts and law and to convert the order of acquittal into one conviction. Further, he relied on the case of Akalu Ahir Vs. Ramdeo Ram, 1973 AIR (SC) 2145 and argued that normally, the High Court should not direct the retrial unless there is some infirmity rendered in the trial defective. On revision, the High Court expressly prohibited from converting an acquittal into conviction.

7. The learned counsel raised a legal question that the statement of the deceased as to the cause of death would prevail over the ocular evidence. To answer the question, the statement of the deceased as to her cause of death and th