Mirabai Rajendra Rohokale vs State Of Maha & Ors
2016 Latest Caselaw 1443 Bom

                                                                          crirev316.03
                                          (1)

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                            
                             BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 316 OF 2003




                                                    
     Mirabai w/o Rajendra Rohokale,
     Age : 28 years, Occ. Household,
     R/o Malwadi (Bhalwani),




                                                   
     Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar                   ..PETITIONER
                                                    (Orig. Complainant)

              VERSUS




                                        
     1.       The State of Maharashtra

     2.
                             
              Rajendra Vishnu Rohokale,
              Age : 35 years, Occ. Agri.,
              R/o Malwadi (Bhalwani),
              Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar
                            
     3.       Reubai Vishnu Rohokale,
              Age : 55 years, Occ.Agri. & Household,
              R/o Malwadi (Bhalwani),
      

              Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar           ..RESPONDENTS
                                              (Resps. No.2 & 3 - Orig. Accused)
   



     Mr N.V. Gaware, Advocate for petitioner;
     Ms R.P. Gaur, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.1;





     Mr S.S. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3


                                             CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 12th April, 2016

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr Gaware, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner; Ms Gaur, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf

of respondent no.1 and Mr Jadhavar, learned Counsel on behalf of

respondents no.2 and 3.

crirev316.03

2. The present revision is directed against the judgment and order of

acquittal rendered by learned 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar

on 19th July, 2003, in Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2001, thereby acquitting

respondents no.2 and 3 - accused of offence punishable under section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Facts as are necessary for deciding the present revision are as

under :-

Original accused nos.1 to 4 were facing trial for having committed

offences punishable under sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506 read with section

34 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Complaint came to be lodged by P.W.1 Meerabai, who was married

to accused no.1 Rajendra on 2nd June, 1990 and accused nos.2 to 4 are

her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. Accused no.1 is

veterinary doctor. It is the case of the prosecution that all the accused

claimed that since the marriage was not solemnized and performed with

appropriate standard, accused started illtreating the complainant. It is also

claimed that the amount of Rs.25,000/- was demanded for purchasing a

tractor. It is then claimed that for non-fulfilling the said demand, accused

no.1 used to abuse and beat the complainant and was also made to

starve. She was driven out from the house by the accused persons after

beating her, which incident took place on 7 th August, 1998. Report Exh.21

came to be filed with the police station, Parner on 21 st October, 1998 after

crirev316.03

delay of about two months. After completion of investigation, charge-

sheet came to be filed on 9 th November, 1998. The charge came to be

framed against the accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried. As there was delay of more than two months in lodging the

complaint, the complainant was not referred for medical examination, as no

injury could be found on her body, as such to that effect there is no

medical evidence on record. It is then claimed that when she went back to

her parental house, no visible injury could be noticed.

5. It is also required to be noted that the complainant begot a male

child out of the above wedlock, who appears to be in the custody of the

accused persons. The present applicant - complainant had taken recourse

to the provisions of section 97 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with an

intention to get custody of the child which application was rejected.

6. Learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted respondents no.2 & 3 -

accused by his judgment and order dated 5 th November, 2011, of offences

punishable under sections 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, however, convicted them for offence punishable under section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate acquitted accused

nos.2 and 4 of all the charges.

7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction,

respondents no.2 & 3 preferred Criminal Appeal No.61 of 2001, which

came to be allowed by the judgment and order dated 19 th July, 2001,

crirev316.03

passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Hence, this

revision.

8. Mr Gaware, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that the appellate court, by ordering acquittal of respondents no.2

& 3 - accused has committed an error by re-appreciating the evidence

perversely. According to him, much stress is given on complaint Exhs. 21

and 22 and oral testimony of the witnesses was incorrectly ignored.

9. Learned Counsel would then submit that the judgment of acquittal

be set aside and the matter be remanded back for re-trial.

10. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor assisted the Court in assessing

evidence brought before the Court below and submits that the Court, in the

factual matrix and evidence, may pass appropriate order.

11. It is required to be noted that the relationship between the accused

persons was, in fact, admitted. The claim under section 97 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure for custody of the child by the present petitioner is also

not in dispute.

12. While proceeding ahead with the issue of subjecting the petitioner

by the accused to cruelty, the contents of the complaints Exhs.20 and 22

are required to be appreciated.

crirev316.03

13. It is then required to be noted that the complainant herself examined

as P.W.1, her uncle Piraji at Exh.24 and her father Bhagchand at Exh.40. It

is noted that all these witnesses have stated about the alleged cruelty as

there was a demand of Rs.25,000/- for purchasing tractor by the accused

persons. It is then required to be noted that after the marriage of the

petitioner with accused no.1, the cousin brother of the complainant,

namely, Vitthal had contested and lost the election for the post of Director

of a co-operative society against accused no.3.

14. That the complaint Exh.22 was moved by the complainant to the

police station, Parner, which was not produced at the time of investigation,

but was produced at the time of recording her evidence. No explanation

was tendered for the same. Exh.21 is a complaint dated 21 st October,

1998 on the basis of which the accused persons are prosecuted. If

Exhs.21 and 22 are perused and compared, a great degree of veracity is

noticed. In Exh.22 which was produced at the stage of recording of

evidence, the petitioner has named Savita and Sadhana as accused along

with the present respondents - accused, who are her sisters-in-law.

However, the said sisters-in-law are not mentioned as accused in the

complaint at Exh.21. It is then claimed by the complainant that she was

forced to undergo an abortion, which amounts to cruelty. However, there

is hardly any material on record to accept the same. Fact remains that the

evidence of witnesses Shankar, Balasaheb and Bhagchand is silent on the

above aspects as regards veracity in the contents of complaints Exh.21

and 22.

crirev316.03

15. So far as the allegation of demand of Rs.25,000/- for purchase of

tractor is concerned, while evaluating the same, on perusal if both the

complaints at Exhs.21 and 22, it is noted that in Exh.22 the demand was

towards the outstanding payment of Doctor. In fact, there is no mention

about the demand of money for purchase of tractor in Exh.22. However, in

her evidence at Exh.20 the complainant has stated about demand of

Rs.25,000/- for purchase of the tractor. Apart from above, it is required to

be noted that before filing Exhs.21 and 22, no history about cruelty or

illtreatment as alleged could be noticed. It is then required to be noted

that proceedings for restitution of conjugal rights were initiated in 1998 vide

H.M.P. No.234 of 1998. A judicial note of the said proceedings was taken

by the Court below wherein accused no.1 has made efforts for re-union.

The inference from the events as are narrated qua Exhs.21 and 22 and the

fact that the present petitioner was denied, custody of the son prompts the

Court to take a view that it is out of frustration, the complaint in question

came to be filed, which has resulted into initiation of prosecution. In this

background, keeping in mind the scope of revisional jurisdiction,

particularly in the matter of acquittal of respondents no.2 and 3 - accused,

no error of jurisdiction or failure to exercise jurisdiction is noticed.

16. In view thereof, revision sans merit and stands dismissed.

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.) amj