The State Of Maharashtra vs Shantaram Kondaji Naikode & Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2538 Bom

PVR                                  1/5                                          204apeal1216-02.doc


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     Criminal Appeal No. 1216 OF 2002


The State Of Maharashtra                                                 )...Appellant

        Versus

1.Shantaram Kondaji Naikode.                                             )

2.Nanabhau Kondaji Naikode,                                              )

3.Smt.Vatsalabai Nanabhau Naikode                                        )

4.Shri.Raghunath Yesuji Pote                                             )

All R/a.Golapur, Kadus, Tal:Khed, Dist.Pune                              )...Respondents
                                                                           (Orig.Accused 1 to 4)
                                             ---

Mr.Deepak Thakare, APP for the Appellant-State.

None for the Respondents.
                                        ---
                                     CORAM :  G.S. KULKARNI, JJ.

DATED : 15th May, 2017

----

Judgment:

1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and

order dated 21 June 2002 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First

Class, Khed, Dist. Pune, whereby the respondents-accused have been

PVR 2/5 204apeal1216-02.doc

acquitted of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are as under:-

Respondent Nos.1 to 4 are accused Nos.1 to 4. Accused No.1-

Shantaram is husband of complainant Sunanda and other accused are

relatives of accused No.1. On 2 May 1995, complainant - Sunanda got

married with accused No.1 and started cohabiting with him. According to

the complainant-Sunanda, when she was pregnant, accused doubted on

her pregnancy and subjected her to cruelty, mental and physical ill-

treatment which, according to the complainant, was continued upto 22

July 1997 when she lodged complaint with the Khed Police Station

narrating the incidents. The police took cognizance of the offence and

registered the case against the accused. On completion of investigation, a

chargesheet came to be filed prosecuting the accused under Section 498A,

323, 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence was of total denial.

3. To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution

examined P.W.1 - Kantaram Mahadu Bhondve, brother-in-law of the

complainant's father. P.W.2-Sunanda Shantaram Naikode - the

PVR 3/5 204apeal1216-02.doc

complainant, P.W.3-Bhagaji Bajirao Borade who is father of the

complainant and P.W.4-Sudhakar Chudaman Pawar who is the neighbour

of the father of the complainant.

4. The learned Trial Judge considering the evidence, reached a

conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences in

question. It was observed that despite ample opportunity to the

prosecution, the prosecution did not examine the Investigating Officer and

no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming for the same. The learned

Trial Judge opined that there was no evidence to prove that the accused

were guilty of having committed offence under Section 498A, as also the

common intention to commit the offence is also not proved. As regards

the offence under Sections 323 and 504 of I.P.C. is concerned, it is

observed that neither the testimony of the complainant nor of the other

witnesses prove the involvement of the accused in commission of the said

offences. Accordingly, the learned Trial Judge held that the accused were

entitled for benefit of doubt and the accused were accordingly acquitted

of the offences punishable under Section 498A, 323, 504 read with 34 of

the I.P.C.

5. I have heard Mr.Thakare, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor

PVR 4/5 204apeal1216-02.doc

for the appellant. With his assistance, I have perused the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses. I have also perused the impugned judgment and

order.

6. On examining the evidence, it is clear that the evidence is

wholly insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused for any of the

offences with which the accused were charged. Perusal of the testimony

of the complainant does not indicate any instances of ill-treatment either

mentally or physically meted out to the complainant as alleged by her in

the complaint which would fulfill any of the ingredients of Section 498-A.

Further, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 also do not support the case of the complainant

as made out in the complaint of any cruelty at the hands of the accused.

As rightly held by the learned Trial Judge, the Prosecution has not

examined the Investigating Officer which was also fatal to bring home the

guilt of the accused. In regard to the offence under Section 323, 504 read

with 34 of I.P.C., the learned APP fairly submits that as regards these

offences, there is no evidence of any nature of any instances/details to

prove the that the accused are guilty of commission of these offences.

7. Thus, having examined the evidence, I do not find that there

is any perversity or illegality in the findings as recorded by the learned

PVR 5/5 204apeal1216-02.doc

Trial Judge in acquitting the accused for the offences punishable under

Section 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of the I.P.C. The appeal fails and is

accordingly dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused shall stand

cancelled.

(G.S.KULKARNI, J.)