Bombay High Court
Malanbai Parashram Jawale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr. ... on 13 July, 2017
Bench: V.M. Deshpande
1 revn203.16.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO.203/2016
Malanbai Parashram Jawale,
aged about 35 years, Occ. Household,
r/o Pandao Umra, Tq. Dist. Washim. .....APPLICANT
...V E R S U S...
1. The State of Maharashtra through
Police Station Officer, Washim,
Dist. Washim.
2. Gautam Bhimrao Dhuldhule,
aged about 30 years, Occ. Agriculturist,
r/o Pandao Umra, Tq. Dist. Washim. ...NON APPLICANTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. V. B. Gawali, Advocate for applicant.
Mr. N. B. Jawade, A.P.P. for non applicant no.1.
Mr. M. L. Vairagade, Advocate for non applicant no.2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 13.07.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Rule is returnable forthwith. Heard finally by
consent of the parties.
2. The present revision is preferred by the original
complainant against the judgment and order of acquittal passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Washim in Regular
Criminal Case No.70/2007 whereby the learned Magistrate
acquitted the non applicant no.2 of the offence punishable under
2 revn203.16.odt
Sections 452, 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and also dismissal
of the appeal filed on behalf of the present applicant before the
learned Sessions Judge, Washim in Criminal Appeal No.55/2010
dated 13.3.2015.
3. As per the complainant, on 28.01.2016, non applicant
no.2 entered into her house. That time he was armed with knife.
He extended threat to kill her. He threatened the complainant to
withdraw the complaint, which according to the complainant was
lodged by her against non applicant no.2 before the Collector.
4. As per the complainant's case, she lodged one
complaint with Collector and said complaint was fixed for hearing
on 05.02.2007. The complaint was filed against the non applicant
no.2 for misutilization of power while acting as Sarpanch of the
village. Therefore, he entered into her house with knife and
extended threats to kill her. The evidence as brought on record
during the trial shows that there is no evidence to show that the
accused entered into the house of the complainant with intend to
commit an offence. Therefore, in my view, both the courts below
have correctly recorded a finding that an offence punishable under
Section 452 of the IPC is not proved.
3 revn203.16.odt
Further, the evidence is totally silent in order to prove
the charge against him for the offence punishable under Section
506(2) of the IPC.
5. Though it is the case of the complainant that non
applicant no.2 entered into her house with a weapon-knife, during
the course of investigation, no knife was seized. The pancha
witnesses have turned hostile. Even the Investigating Officer is
also not examined.
Further, it is important to note that according to the
complainant, the accused has entered into her house and extended
the threat because of the complaint filed by her against the non
applicant no.2 before the Collector. However, the said complaint
is not filed on record.
6. In view of the aforesaid, I do not see any reason to
discard the finding recorded by the court below. No case is made
out for interference. The revision is therefore dismissed.
Rule is discharged.
JUDGE
kahale
