Bombay High Court
Sau.Sandhya Rajeshwar Sangewar vs State Of Maharashtra & 1 Anor on 21 April, 2016
Bench: Z.A. Haq
Judgment 1 apeal161.99+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 161 OF 1999
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 31 OF 1999
CRI.APPEAL NO.161/1999.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.O. Umarkhed.
ig .... APPELLANT.
// VERSUS //
Rajeshwar S/o. Govindrao Sangewar,
Aged about 43 years, R/o. Nanded,
Datta Nagar, Nanded.
.... RESPONDENT
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Appellant/State.
None for the Respondent.
___________________________________________________________________
WITH
CRI.REVISION APPLN.NO. 31/1999.
Sandhya Rajeshwar Sangewar,
Aged about 35 years, Occupation : Nurse,
Primary Health Centre, Ambejogai,
District : Bid.
.... .... APPLICANT.
// VERSUS //
1. The State of Maharashtra,
through its PSO, Umarkhed.
::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 29/07/2016 23:11:54 :::
Judgment 2 apeal161.99+1.odt
2. Rajeshwar S/o. Govindrao Sangewar,
Aged about 43 years, Occu. Business,
R/o. Nanded Housing Society, Nanded.
.... .... NON-APPLICANTS
.
___________________________________________________________________
Shri Sumit Joshi, Advocate for Applicant.
Shri S.S.Doifode, A.P.P. for Non-applicant No.1.
None for Non-applicant No.2.
___________________________________________________________________
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : APRIL 21, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1. These two matters are disposed of by common judgment as the
judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class in Regular Criminal
Case No.87 of 1996 on 27th July, 1998 acquitting the respondent-accused
Rajeshwar Govindrao Sangewar of the offence punishable under Section 498-
A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code is challenged in these two matters. The
Appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra and the Revision Application is
filed by the complainant/wife Sau. Sandhya Rajeshwar Sangewar.
2. Heard Shri S.S. Doifode, A.P.P. for the appellant/ State of
Maharashtra and Shri S.G.Joshi, advocate for the complainant Smt. Sandhya
Sangewar.
3. The case of the prosecution is :
Judgment 3 apeal161.99+1.odt
The marriage between the complainant and the accused was
solemnized 13 years prior to the lodging of the complaint by the
complainant, that after some time the accused started ill-treating the
complainant and used to beat and assault her and made monetary demand.
According to the prosecution, 15 days prior to lodging of the report dated 7th
August, 1996 the accused had beaten the complainant in their house at
Nanded in presence of Pramod (brother of the complainant), that Pramod
had brought the complainant to Umarkhed, that the accused came at
Umarkhed on 6th August, 1996 at about 9.00 p.m. and demanded
Rs.20,000/- and on refusal by the parents of the complainant to fulfill his
demand, the accused assaulted the complainant and Pramod. The report was
lodged on the basis of which Crime No.117 of 1996 came to be registered for
the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal
Code.
The investigation was undertaken, Smt. Sandhya was referred
for medical examination, statements were recorded and charge-sheet came to
be filed. The contents of the charge framed against the accused were
explained to the accused in vernacular, the accused did not accept the guilt
and claimed to be tried. The learned Magistrate conducted trial and by the
impugned judgment concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that
the accused had subjected his wife to mental and physical cruelty and that
the accused had voluntarily caused hurt to complainant Sandhya on 6th
August, 1996 at about 21.00 hrs. and acquitted the respondents. The State
Judgment 4 apeal161.99+1.odt
of Maharashtra and complainant Smt. Sandhya, being aggrieved by the
judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the accused has filed
this appeal and revision application.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor and the learned
advocate for the complainant have submitted that the learned Magistrate has
committed an error in discarding the evidence of Pramod (P.W.3) and
Annapurna-mother of the complainant (P.W.6) on the ground that they are
closely related to the complainant and therefore, they are interested
witnesses. It is submitted that Pramod and Annapurna are natural witnesses
and they witnessed the incident and therefore, their evidence could not have
been discarded. It is submitted that the learned Magistrate should have
considered their evidence applying the normal rule that the evidence of
interested witnesses should be examined with due care and caution. It is
further submitted that the evidence of Ramrao (P.W. 4) is also discarded
wrongly only because he happens to be the tenant of father of the
complainant. It is argued that Ramrao is also natural witness and he was
present at the time of the incident as he occupied part of the house of the
complainant's father as a tenant. The learned APP and the learned advocate
have referred to the evidence of Pramod (P.W. 3), Annapurna (P.W. 6) and
Ramrao (P.W. 4) and have submitted that the evidence of the above referred
witnesses prove it beyond doubt that the complainant Sandhya was given
cruel treatment by the accused and Sandhya and Pramod were assaulted on
Judgment 5 apeal161.99+1.odt
6th August, 1996 by the accused. It is prayed that the impugned judgment
be set aside and the accused be convicted for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A and 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. With the assistance of the learned A.P.P. and the advocate for
the complainant, I have examined the record. The submissions made on
behalf of the appellant and the complainant that the learned Magistrate has
committed an error in discarding the evidence of Pramod (P.W. 3),
Annapurna (P.W. 6) and Ramrao (P.W. 4) cannot be accepted as the learned
Magistrate has not discarded the evidence of the above referred witnesses at
the threshold but has considered their evidence and has found that their
evidence does not prove beyond doubt that the accused has committed the
offence. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of Dr.
Bhujangrao-Medical Officer (P.W. 7) who had examined Sandhya and
Pramod. The evidence of Dr. Bhujangrao (P.W. 7) shows that no injury /
abrasion was found on the person of Sandhya and Pramod. The learned
Magistrate has also considered the evidence of Gopal (P.W.1) and Ganpat
(P.W.5) who acted as panchas. The learned Magistrate has considered the
evidence of Investigating Officer H.C. Suresh (P.W.8) and has expressed doubt
about the spot panchnama.
The learned Magistrate has also considered the evidence on
record which shows that Sandhya was employed as nurse and was getting
Judgment 6 apeal161.99+1.odt
salary of Rs.4,000/- per month and the accused was an auto-rickshaw driver
and Sandhya did not like the accused. The learned Magistrate has also
recorded that the father of the complainant Sandhya was poor and found it
difficult to maintain his family and it is difficult to accept that the accused
had demanded amount of Rs.20,000/- from father of the complainant
Sandhya.
6.
It cannot be said that the learned Magistrate has committed any
error or has not considered and appreciated the relevant evidence. The
judgment passed by the learned Magistrate is proper and does not require
any interference.
7. The criminal appeal and criminal revision application are
dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
JUDGE
RRaut..
