Bombay High Court
State Of ... vs Srikant S/O Puranchand Ramteke & 2 ... on 23 September, 2016
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
CRI.APPEAL.566.02
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.
...
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 566/2002
The State of Maharashtra
Through P.S. Jaripatka
Nagpur. .. APPELLANT
v e r s u s
1) Shrikant s/o Puranchand Ramteke
Aged about 27 years,
R/o Thavre Colony, P.S. Jaripatka
Nagpur.
2) Puranchand s/o Namdev Ramteke
Aged about 57 years
R/o Thavre Colony, P.S. Jaripatka
Nagpur.
(As per Court's order dated 8.10.95
Appeal abated against Res.No.2)
3) Sau.Prabhbai w/o Puranchand Ramteke (Dead)... RESPONDENTS
...........................................................................................................................
Mr.A.M.Balpande, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the appellant-State
Mr. Y.B. Mandpe, Advocate for Respondent no.1
Respondent No.2 abated
Respondent no.3 dead
............................................................................................................................
CORAM: V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED : 23rd September, 2016
JUDGMENT:
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 7th Court
CRI.APPEAL.566.02
Nagpur, on 2.7.2002 in RCC No. 42/1999 ( old Case No.152/1995) by which
the learned Magistrate was pleased to acquit the accused for the offence
punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Heard Shri A.M. Balpande, learned Additional Public prosecutor
and Shri Y.B. Mandpe, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, in extenso.
3.
Originally, the husband and his parents were prosecuted in the
criminal case before the learned Magistrate for the offence punishable u/s.
498A r/ws. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. During the pendency of the trial,
original accused no.3-Sau.Parvatibai w/o Puranchand Ramteke expired and,
therefore, the trial was abated against her.
During the pendency of the present Appeal, the respondent no.2
Puranchand (original accused no.2) also expired and, therefore, this Court on
8th October, 2015 passed an order by which, the present Appeal was also
abated against Puranchand.
4. The marriage between respondent no.1-Shrikant and Bharti
(PW 1), took place on 15.5.1994. The said was a love marriage. An oral
report was lodged by Bharti (Exh. 26) on 16.4.1995 against her husband and
parents-in-law. The gist of the oral report was that after the marriage there
CRI.APPEAL.566.02
was a demand of money at the hands of deceased-accused. The demand was
fulfilled by her mother by selling an auto-rickshaw. The husband used to beat
her. On 11.4.1995, when she fell ill, she was not taken to hospital but she
was driven out. The efforts for reconciliation between them was failed and,
therefore, the First Information Report was lodged.
5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed.
Three witnesses were examined by the prosecution, to bring home the guilt of
the accused persons : they are Bharti (PW 1), Dayaram (PW 2) and Sau.
Nirmala (PW 3)), the parents of Bharti.
6. With the assistance of both the learned counsel I have gone
through the impugned judgment. The learned Judge of the Court below
found that the evidence was not sufficient to record the finding of guilt. The
learned Judge noticed that the evidence of parents of Bharti is full of
contradictions and omissions. Further, they were found to be inconsistent with
each other.
7. From the evidence, it appears that the parental house of Bharti
was situated just ten minutes away from her matrimonial house. Inspite of
the said fact, the delay has occurred in lodging the FIR though the
explanation is given by the first informant. Looking to the allegations made in
CRI.APPEAL.566.02
the first information report, the said does not appear to be probable one.
8. The evidence of Bharti is not at all supported by her parents in
respect of taking away of ornaments. No doubt true, in his evidence, Dayaram
has stated that he has sold the auto-rickshaw to give the amount. However, no
details of the same are brought on record, except the said bald statement.
9.
During the course of hearing, it is pointed out to this Court that
a petition for divorce by mutual consent was filed. The said was registered as
Petition No. 541/2000. Copy of the judgment in the said petition is taken on
record and is marked as 'X' for the purpose of identification. The said
judgment shows that during the pendency of the proceedings before the
Family Court, a compromise took place between husband and wife and
decree of divorce was passed. No doubt true, that the criminal case has to he
judged and examined on altogether different grounds. However, one cannot
forget, when the compromise pursis was filed, that time the criminal case filed
by Bharti against her husband, was already disposed of, in his acquittal.
Therefore, it appears that the said is not finding place in the compromise
pursis.
10. I am of the view that the Court below has not committed any
wrong while appreciating the evidence brought on record. The evidence of
CRI.APPEAL.566.02
the prosecution witnesses was not to the standard by which it could be held
that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused, beyond
reasonable doubt. Coupled with the fact that the divorce has already taken
place between the parties, I am of the view that it this is not a fit case wherein
this Court should upset the judgment of acquittal. Hence, the Appeal is
dismissed.
JUDGE
sahare
CRI.APPEAL.566.02
C E R T I F I C AT E
" I certify that this Judgment/Order uploaded is a true
and correct copy of original signed Judgment/Order."
Uploaded by: N.B.Sahare
P.S.
Uploaded on: 26.09.2016.
CRI.APPEAL.566.02
