[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Jamir Ahmed Shaikh And Ors. on 1 April, 2026
Author: R.N.Laddha
Bench: R.N.Laddha
Digitally signed
2026:BHC-AS:15489 CHITRA SANJAY
SONAWANE
by CHITRA
SANJAY Date:
SONAWANE 2026.04.01
20:03:55
+0530
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Criminal Appeal No.1447 of 2003
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant.
Vs.
1. Jamir Ahmed Shaikh
Age: 29 yrs,
2. Mohamad Rumeth Ahmed Shaikh
Age: 24 yrs,
3. Smt Najma @ Najmunnisa Shaikh
Age: 50 yrs,
All residing at Yeshoda Apartment,
Flat No.3, Wadala road,Dwarka Nashik.
(Abated as per Court's order ... Respondents/
dt. 24.2.2026) (Org. Accused)
---
Ms Sangeeta E Phad, APP for the State/ Appellant.
Ms Aishwarya Sharma, appointed Advocate through High
Court Legal Services Committee, Mumbai, for respondents
no.1 and 2.
---
Coram : R.N.Laddha, J.
Date : 1 April 2026.
P.C. :
By the present appeal, the appellant/ the State seeks to
assail the judgment and order dated 18 April 2006 passed
by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik, in RCC
No.428 of 2001, whereby the respondents (accused Nos.1
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
and 2) were acquitted of the offences punishable under
Sections 498A, 323, 504 and 506 read with 34 of the Indian
Penal Code ('IPC'). During the pendency of the present
appeal, respondent No.3 expired, and therefore, by an
order dated 24 February 2026, the appeal stood dismissed
as abated against respondent No.3.
2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the
complainant is the wife of accused No.1/ respondent No.1
and their marriage was solemnised on 28 April 1997. It is
alleged that, from the fifth day of the marriage, the accused
began subjecting her to harassment with the intent of
extracting dowry, specifically demanding furniture and a
vehicle. The complainant reported these incidents to her
father (PW-2), who cautioned the accused against such
conduct; however, his intervention proved ineffective. It is
further alleged that accused No.1 began physically
assaulting the complainant on suspicions regarding her
character, while the other accused frequently subjected her
to verbal abuse. On 21 April 2001, the accused are stated to
have demanded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the purchase of a
vehicle, Tata Sumo. During this period, accused No.1
allegedly inflicted severe physical violence upon the
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
complainant, reproaching her for failing to procure the
demanded amount. The complainant again informed her
father, who subsequently admitted her to National Hospital,
Nashik. The allegations indicate that she was subjected to
physical and mental harassment at the hands of accused
No.1 in connection with dowry demands.
3. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge sheet
came to be filed. The respondents denied the accusations
and claimed to be tried. To substantiate the charge, the
prosecution examined six witnesses, viz., Shirine Jamir
Shaikh, the complainant (PW-1); Mhaboob Bademiya
Shaikh, father of the complainant (PW-2); Rajiya Hamid
Shaikh, the complainant's aunt (PW-3); Dr Hasib Gafar
Shaikh, Medical Officer at National General & Accidental
Hospital (PW-4); Shaikh Mustak Hamid, brother of the
complainant (PW-5); and Dattatraya Bhikaji Newade,
Investigating Officer (PW-6). After the prosecution
concluded its evidence, the statements of the accused were
recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. The accused denied the incriminating
circumstances and examined one Narayan Genu Misal (DW-
1) in defence. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record,
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
the learned trial Court acquitted the respondents. Being
aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred the present
appeal.
4. I have heard Ms Sangeeta Phad, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor representing the appellant/ State, and Ms
Aishwarya Sharma, the learned Counsel appointed on
behalf of the respondents, and with their able assistance,
perused the entire record and proceedings.
5. The substratum of the prosecution case rests primarily
upon the oral testimony of the complainant (PW-1), which
is sought to be corroborated by her close relatives and a
solitary piece of documentary evidence in the nature of a
letter (Exh.19), along with medical evidence. The testimony
of PW-1, though central to the prosecution, does not inspire
implicit confidence when tested on the anvil of consistency,
probability, and corroboration. While PW-1 deposed that ill-
treatment commenced within a few days of marriage and
continued over a period of years, there is a conspicuous
absence of any contemporaneous complaint or report to any
authority during this prolonged period. PW-1, in fact,
admitted that except for the present complaint, neither she
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
nor her father had lodged any complaint at any police
station prior thereto. Such inaction assumes significance,
particularly when the allegations pertain to repeated
physical assaults and persistent dowry demands. Pertinently,
PW-1 admitted in her cross-examination that no demand for
dowry was made at the time of the settlement of marriage,
which contradicts the prosecution theory of a continuing
dowry demand originating from the matrimonial
arrangement. It is further material that she admitted that
Rs.50,000/- would not suffice for the purchase of a Tata
Sumo vehicle, thereby rendering the alleged purpose of
demand inherently improbable.
6. Material omissions and inconsistencies are also
evident. PW-1 admitted that she had not sent any prior
letters or complaints before Exh.19, and that she did not
approach the nearby Dwarka Police Chawki immediately
after the alleged incident. Her version regarding continuous
ill-treatment over 4 to 5 years is thus unsupported by any
contemporaneous record. Further, the allegations against
accused Nos.2 and 3 are omnibus in nature, without specific
overt acts attributed to each accused, thereby weakening the
prosecution's case qua them.
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
7. The prosecution has placed considerable reliance on
the letter (Exh.19), purportedly written by PW-1 to her
father. However, this document is shrouded in doubt.
Firstly, it finds no mention in the FIR or the initial
complaint. Secondly, the Investigating Officer (PW-6)
conceded that the existence of such a letter came to light
only during the course of the investigation through a
supplementary statement, and that there is no reference to
the said letter in the original complaint at all. This belated
introduction of a material document casts serious doubt on
its genuineness. That apart, the evidence regarding the
transmission of this letter remains inconsistent. While PW-1
claims to have sent it through her brother, PW-5 attempts to
support this version, yet both PW-5 and PW-6 have
admitted that such a fact is not reflected in the police
statement. These omissions and contradictions materially
affect the authenticity and evidentiary value of Exh.19.
8. Furthermore, the testimonies of PW-2 (father) and
PW-3 (aunt) are essentially derivative and based on what
PW-1 allegedly narrated to them. Such evidence is in the
nature of hearsay and requires strong independent
corroboration, which is lacking. In addition, both PW-2 and
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
PW-3 have made improvements over their earlier
statements. PW-2 has admitted that his police statement
does not contain allegations that all the accused had
assaulted the complainant. Similarly, PW-3's version
regarding her presence at Nashik at the relevant time,
receipt of telephonic information, and the sequence of
events is not borne out from her police statement. She has
admitted that several material particulars, including the
details of the alleged phone call and her movements, were
not disclosed to the police. These discrepancies are not
minor in nature but go to the root of the prosecution's case.
9. PW-5, the cousin of the complainant, has attempted to
support the prosecution by deposing about the alleged
demand of dowry, ill-treatment, and the incident dated 21
April 2001. He has also testified about the letter (Exh.19),
stating that it was handed over to him by the complainant
for delivery to her father. However, his evidence is marred
by material omissions and inconsistencies. He admitted that
the fact of the complainant handing over the letter
(Exh.19), the receipt of telephonic information, and the
presence of his mother are not stated in his police
statement. He further admitted that despite receiving
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
information, he did not immediately go to meet the
complainant, which appears unnatural conduct.
Additionally, he could not explain why several material facts
deposed before the Court are absent from his earlier
statement. His testimony, therefore, appears to be an
improved version and lacks reliability.
10. The medical evidence adduced through PW-4 does not
lend conclusive support to the prosecution case. PW-4 has
categorically stated that the cause of the injuries could not
be ascertained and that such injuries are equally possible by
accidental means, including contact with a hard surface. He
further stated that no external injuries, abrasions, or
bleeding were observed, and the X-ray report was normal.
Significantly, PW-4 admitted that the complainant did not
disclose the cause of her injuries at the time of examination.
He has also acknowledged that, despite the case bearing
medico-legal characteristics, he did not inform the police as
required under established procedure. These deficiencies
materially weaken the probative value of the medical
evidence and fail to establish any definitive nexus between
the alleged injuries and the purported assault.
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
11. The evidence of PW-6 indicates material infirmities in
the investigation. PW-6 categorically admitted that Exh.19
was not mentioned in the original complaint and surfaced
only during the investigation. He has also conceded that
certain allegations deposed to by the witnesses are absent
from their police statements, indicating improvements at
trial. PW-6 also stated that the Medical Officer's statement
was not recorded and offered no satisfactory explanation
for the delay in lodging the complaint on 25 April 2001
instead of 21 April 2001, when the alleged incident
occurred, especially given the proximity of the police
station.
12. The defence examined DW-1, an Executive Engineer
with MSEB, who produced the attendance register (Exh.42)
reflecting that accused No.1 had marked his presence on
duty on 21 April 2001, with a view to casting doubt on the
prosecution version, particularly concerning the alleged
incident dated 21 April 2001. DW-1's testimony indicates
that attendance is recorded by way of signature at the
commencement of working hours, and in the ordinary
course, such a record carries a presumption of regularity.
This circumstance lends support to the defence contention
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
that accused No.1 had attended his place of employment on
the date of the alleged incident. The evidence of DW-1
introduces a plausible alternative and creates a reasonable
doubt regarding the presence of accused No.1 at the
relevant time. When viewed in conjunction with the
deficiencies in the prosecution case, this doubt assumes
significance and reinforces the conclusion that the accused is
entitled to the benefit of doubt.
13. In addition to the above, the evidence on record
indicates several discrepancies in the prosecution's version
of events regarding the complainant's hospitalisation. PW-1
states that she was admitted to National Hospital for five
days following a beating on 21 April 2001, during which
she received saline and underwent X-rays. However, her
father, PW-2, claims that she was admitted for only three
days, while PW-3 and PW-5 provide slightly varying
accounts, describing the admission as lasting four to five
days. The exact timing of her admission is also inconsistent.
PW-1 states that her father admitted her the following day,
PW-3 recalls being informed at night on 21 April 2001 and
taking her on 22 April 2001, and PW-5 refers to receiving a
phone call around 21:00 hours and attending the hospital
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
the next day. These variations create uncertainty about
when PW-1 actually received medical treatment.
14. Furthermore, there is a notable absence of a discharge
summary from National Hospital, which would normally
provide an official record of admission dates, duration of
stay, treatment provided, and the patient's condition at
discharge. The lack of such a document undermines the
ability to independently verify the hospitalisation and
correlates with the fact that the Medical Officer, PW-4, did
not inform the police about the medico-legal significance of
the injuries, nor was his statement formally recorded by law
enforcement. PW-4's testimony indicates he observed blunt
abdominal trauma, a strained finger, and tender neck
muscles; however, these findings could not be definitively
linked to any specific cause, and the X-rays appeared
normal.
15. Moreover, there is an inconsistency regarding who
admitted PW-1; PW-1 claims her father did, while other
witnesses assert that they accompanied her or took her to
the hospital. PW-6, the investigating officer, relied solely on
the medical certificate and witnesses' statements,
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
acknowledging that he did not personally verify her
hospitalisation or obtain a discharge summary. This
procedural gap, combined with the absence of a discharge
document and the discrepancies in duration, timing, and
witness accounts, raises serious questions about the
substantiation of PW-1's hospitalisation, the exact nature of
her injuries, and their connection to the accused.
Additionally, the attendance records of accused No.1
suggest he was present at work on the alleged date of the
assault, further complicating the timeline. Collectively, these
factors highlight significant inconsistencies and gaps in the
evidentiary record regarding PW-1's hospitalisation.
16. Furthermore, the timeline of lodging the FIR contains
discrepancies that raise questions about the sequence of
events. PW-1 deposed that she was beaten on 21 April 2001
and admitted to the hospital the next day, allegedly for a
period of five days. According to her account, the FIR was
to be lodged after her discharge, which would have been
around 26 April 2001. However, the FIR was actually
registered on 25 April 2001, a day before her alleged
discharge. This creates a clear inconsistency between her
hospitalisation period and the date of the FIR. The
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
Chitra Sonawane 1-CA-1447-2003.doc
discrepancy, coupled with the absence of a discharge
summary or contemporaneous police verification of her
hospital admission, casts a serious doubt on the
prosecution's narrative.
17. Upon cumulative assessment, the prosecution evidence
suffers from inherent inconsistencies, material omissions,
lack of independent corroboration, and doubtful
documentary support. The evidence does not unerringly
point to the accused's guilt. The learned trial Court
meticulously evaluated these aspects and has rightly
concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case
beyond a reasonable doubt. The view taken by the trial
Court is a plausible and legally sustainable view based on
the evidence on record.
18. In such circumstances, interference would be wholly
unwarranted. This Court finds no compelling or substantial
reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. The appeal,
therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.
[R. N. Laddha, J.]
____________________________________________
1 April 2026
