State Of Mah. Thr. Sau Alka ... vs Dharampal Shrawanji Gadpayle
2016 Latest Caselaw 1910 Bom

                                            1                                         apeal587.03




                                                                                     
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
                      




                                                             
                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.




                                                            
     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.587 OF 2003



     State of Maharashtra, 




                                               
     through Sau. Alka Dharampal Gadpayle.                            ....       APPELLANT


               
                             
                         VERSUS
                            
     Dharampal s/o Shrawanji Gadpayle,
     Aged about 32 years, 
     R/o Shanti Nagar, Bangade Plot,
     Near Dr. Meshram House, Police
      


     Station, Lakadganj, Nagpur.                                      ....       RESPONDENT
   



     ______________________________________________________________
         Shri S.M. Bhagde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant,
                            None for the respondent. 





      ______________________________________________________________

                                   CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.

DATED : 27 APRIL, 2016.

th

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri S.M. Bhagde, Additional Public Prosecutor for

the appellant.

2. The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal challenging

the judgment passed by the learned Magistrate acquitting the

2 apeal587.03

respondent-accused of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of

the Indian Penal Code.

3. The case of the prosecution is :

The complainant Alka Dharampal Gadpayale lodged complaint

that she was subjected to cruelty, mental and physical ill-treatment by

her husband-accused.

On the basis of the complaint, crime came to be registered,

investigation was conducted and charge-sheet was filed before the

learned Magistrate.

The charge came to be framed and explained to the accused.

The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried.

The learned Magistrate conducted the trial and by the impugned

judgment concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the

accused subjected his wife-complainant to cruelty as his illegal demand

of money was not fulfilled. The learned Magistrate acquitted the

accused.

4. The learned Magistrate has considered the evidence of the

complainant and has found that the complainant has attempted to

develop her evidence and the omissions go unexplained. The

3 apeal587.03

complainant stated in her evidence that at the time of Nagpanchami,

after her marriage, the accused had demanded money under the

influence of liquor and when the complainant asked him from where

she will bring the money, the accused tried to pour kerosene on her

person. However, this incident was not referred by the complainant in

the First Information Report (Exhibit No.25) and the prosecution has

not given any explanation for this.

According to the complainant, she was beaten by her

husband on 26-11-2000 at about 9-00 a.m. According to the

prosecution, the complainant lodged the report and then she was

referred for medical examination. The prosecution has relied on the

medico legal certificate (Exhibit No.39) and the evidence of Dr. Dayal

Tularam Nagdeote (P.W.7) to prove that the complainant suffered

injuries. The medico legal certificate (Exhibit No.39) shows that the

doctor had examined the complainant on 26-11-2000 at 8.30 p.m.

Dr. Dayal Tularam Nagdeote (P.W.7) has given the opinion that the

injuries suffered by the complainant may be caused by hard and blunt

object. In cross-examination, the witness has accepted that injuries are

possible due to fall on the ground.

4 apeal587.03

5. The most important circumstance which weighed with the

learned Magistrate is that, according to the complainant, she did not

inform her parents about the ill-treatment by her husband. The

statements of the parents of the complainant were not recorded during

the investigation. The parents of the complainant are not examined as

witnesses. It is not the case of the complainant that her relations with

her parents were strained. The prosecution has examined Sita

Bhimrao Pichake (P.W.2)-neighbour of the accused. This witness has

admitted in the cross-examination that the complainant had never told

her about ill-treatment by her husband.

6. The prosecution has examined Jaidev Pundlik Tichkule

(P.W.3)-neighbour of parents of the complainant. The learned

Magistrate has doubted the credibility of this witness.

7. I find that the learned Magistrate has assessed the

evidence on record properly and the conclusions of the learned

Magistrate are based on proper appreciation of the material on record

and they cannot be faulted.

5 apeal587.03

8. I see no reason to interfere with the judgment. The appeal

is dismissed.

JUDGE

pma