Bombay High Court
Rizwana Parveen Mohammad Faruque vs State Of Mha. Thr. Department Of ... on 27 June, 2022
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
36revn72.22.odt
1
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 72/2022
Rizwana Parveen Mohammad Faruque ..Versus... State of Maharashtra and ors
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----- ------------ -
Mr. Y.P.Kaslikar, Advocate for applicant.
Mrs. Mayuri Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent/State
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 27/06/2022
1] Heard Mr. Kaslikar, learned counsel for the
applicant and Mrs. Deshmukh, learned APP for respondent/
State.
2] The revision challenges the judgment dated
29.05.2015 by the learned JMFC, Daryapur, whereby the
respondents have been acquitted of the offence under Section
498-A r/w 34 of the IPC. The appellate Court by the judgment
dated 9.2.2021 has dismissed the appeal.
3] Mr. Kaslikar, learned counsel for the applicant by
relying upon the evidence of the complainant states that the
basic premise upon which the impugned judgments are based
is incorrect, as there is specific mention in the evidence of
PW-1 Rizwana Parveen Mohd. Faruque regarding the demand
and therefore, the Courts below ought not to have acquitted
36revn72.22.odt
the respondents.
4] Learned APP supports the impugned judgment
and submits that the evidence of PW-1 would indicate that
there was absolutely no material on record to indicate any
demand.
5] With the assistance of the respective learned
counsels, I have gone through the evidence of PW-1 (pg 27).
The evidence of PW-1 is as vague as possible. Though a claim
is made by the prosecution that on 5.9.2011 the respondents
had gone to the paternal house of the complainant/PW-1 and
made a demand of money, however, in her examination-in-
chief itself the PW-1/complainant does not say on which date
the demand was made. A vague statement is made that in the
year 2011 she was reached to her paternal house, at which
time a demand for Rs. 25,000/- is claimed to have been made.
There is no date mentioned as to when the said demand was
made or by whom, as there were as many four accused
persons. Though learned counsel for the applicant relies upon
the cross-examination of PW-1, it would be material to note
that there is no fixed date indicated in the cross-examination
also to indicate when she had been to Amravati and when the
demand was made. That apart in the cross-examination, PW-1
herself has stated that after 4-5 months of her marriage, which
had taken place in the year 2009, she and her husband had
36revn72.22.odt
started living separately from the other accused. Her evidence
is therefore as vague as possible in respect of demand. Similar
is the evidence of PW-2 Meharunnisa Mohd. Ismail, who is the
mother of complainant PW-1. Though PW-3 Mohd. Asif Mohd.
Ismail, the brother of PW-1, in his evidence speaks about a
demand being made on 5.9.2011, he admits that after the
marriage the PW-1 was residing separately with her husband.
Even as per the PW-3, the earlier amounts were demanded on
loan and not as dowry. It has also come on record that the
respondent No.1 is an effluent person who has tractor,
thresher and immovable property.
6] Considering the relationship of PW-3 with PW-1,
both the Courts below have been skeptical to accept his
evidence, more so in view of the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2,
considering which I do not see any reason to interfere. The
revision is therefore dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:28.06.2022 16:40
