Smt. Jyoti W/O Anil Gondhlekar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 205 Bom

JUDGMENT

S.T. Kharche, J.

Page 1468

1. This revision has been filed by the original complainant Jyoti taking an exception to the judgment and order of acquittal dated 5.7.2000 passed by the learned J.M.F.C. (Court No. 1), Akola, in Reg. Criminal Case No. 524 of 1998, whereby respondents 2 to 7 have been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

2. Brief facts are required to be stated as under :

Complainant Jyoti's marriage was solemnized with original accused No. 1 on 17.5.1998 and soon after the marriage she joined her husband at Akola. Respondent No. 3 is the elder brother, respondent No. 4 is the husband of the sister, respondent No. 5 is the mother while accused No. 6 is the sister of respondent No. 2 Anil and all of them were living jointly at Akola in one and the same house. Complainant Jyoti lived with respondent No. 2 at Akola till 25.7.1998. During the span of near about two months, it is contended that Jyoti was being ill-treated at the hands of her husband in the matrimonial home and her husband had also demanded Rs. 40,000/- which were required by him for the purpose of repairs of the house, though at the time of the marriage, articles like T.V. and gold etc. were given. Jyoti had visited her parents on two occasions only, i.e. on the next day of her marriage and subsequently on the day of Akhadi. She had disclosed to her parents and brothers about the ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her at the hands of the accused. Ultimately on 25.7.1998 she left the matrimonial home and directly went to her parents house at Hiwarkhed. It is contended that she had also written a letter on 20.7.1998 from the matrimonial home addressed to her father Pandhari (P.W. 3). However, on 28.7.1998 Jyoti had gone to police station Akola and lodged the first information report (Ex.39) on the basis of which offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against all the accused. H.C. Gavai (P.W. 5) took up the investigation and on its completion filed the charge-sheet in the Court of learned J.M.F.C.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home guilt at the doors of the accused has examined as many as five witnesses and relied on the direct evidence of complainant Jyoti. The learned Magistrate on appreciation of evidence has Page 1469 recorded the finding that the prosecution has failed to establish that all the accused in furtherance of their common intention subjected Jyoti to cruelty with intent to meet their unlawful demand of Rs. 40,000/- and that they had committed the offence of criminal intimidation with intention to cause alarm to her by threatening her. Consistent with these findings, the learned Magistrate acquitted all the accused of the offences with which they were charged. This judgment and order of acquittal is under challenge in this revision.

4. Mr. Gharote, learned Counsel, for complainant Jyoti contended that Jyoti had written letter on 20.7.1998 from the matrimonial home addressed to her father Pandhari (P.W. 3) mentioning therein that the accused persons had put forth illegal demand of Rs. 40,000/-. He contended that Jyoti was being treated with cruelty in the matrimonial home at the hands of the accused, who are the husband and his relatives. He contended that the testimony of Jyoti would reveal that when she was living with her husband during the period 17.5.1998 to 25.7.1998, she was being threatened that in case she did not bring an amount of Rs. 40,000/-, she would be killed by pouring kerosene on her person. Since the unlawful demand could not be fulfilled she was being threatened and, therefore she left the matrimonial home on 25.7.1998. On 28.7.1998 Jyoti lodged a report at the Akola police station and her version is corroborated in material particulars by the evidence of Ramu (P.W. 2) and Sanjay (P.W. 4). He contended that the learned Magistrate has committed an error in acquitting all the accused of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and, therefore, the revision may kindly be allowed.

5. None is present for respondents 2 to 7.

6. This Court has given thoughtful consideration to the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the original complainant. The learned Counsel took me through the depositions of the material witnesses- namely Jyoti (P.W.1), Ramu (P.W.2), Pandhari (P.W.3) and Sanjay (P.W.4). It is not disputed that the marriage of Jyoti was solemnized with accused Anil on 17.5.1998 and soon after the marriage she joined the matrimonial home at Akola and lived with her husband till 25.7.1998. The husband was living jointly with rest of the accused. The testimony of complainant Jyoti would reveal that she was ill-treated in the matrimonial home and she had disclosed about the said ill-treatment to her parents and brothers. Out Jyoti has stated that she had come to her parents only on two occasions, i.e. On the next day of her marriage and subsequently at the time of Akhadi and the testimony of these witnesses would show that Jyoti had disclosed to them that the accused persons had demanded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- in addition to the dowry given in the marriage.

7. The testimony of Jyoti is not consistent with the testimony of her father Pandhari and brothers Ramu and Sanjay. The complainant claims that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded and us the said amount was not paid there was ill-treatment to her in the matrimonial home. She did not whisper in the letter dated 20.7.1998 addressed to her father from the Page 1470 matrimonial home as to whether this amount was required for the purpose of construction or repairs of the house. However, the witnesses have gone to the extent of improving the case of the complainant that the amount of Rs. 40,000/- was required for the purpose of repairs and construction of the house. It is also not disputed that complainant Jyoti had lodged the report at police station Akola on 28.7.1998. In the letter dated 20.7.1998 Jyoti has mentioned that all the accused used to give her threats that in case she fails to bring the amount of Rs. 40,000/- from her parents, she would be set on fire by pouring kerosene on her person and she would be burnt alive. Therefore she was apprehending danger to her life in the matrimonial home and had come to her parents home on 25.7.1998. It is not possible to accept the testimony of complainant Jyoti that an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was demanded by all the accused because the conduct of the complainant would show that even from 20.7.1998 till 25.7.1998 she lived in the matrimonial home, which is most unnatural. If she was apprehending danger to her life in the matrimonial home she would not have lived there till 25.7.1998.

8. The glaring infirmity brought on record in the case of prosecution is that the complainant Jyoti had gone to police station Akola on 28.7.1998 and lodged the first information report. So there is a delay of about three days in lodging the first information report which has gone unexplained and it certainly weakens the prosecution case. In such circumstances the testimony of the prosecution witnesses being highly interested, do not inspire confidence and do not appear to be trustworthy and the same cannot be pressed into service in order to corroborate the contents of the first information report. Delay in lodging the report does not rule out the possibility of concoction, embroideries and embellishments in such a situation, there is no reason for this Court to take a different view of the matter and, therefore, it is apparent that no case has been made out for interference into the impugned order of acquittal recorded by the learned Magistrate. The criminal revision therefore stands dismissed.