Mhi 1 Cri-Appeal-461-2002.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 461 OF 2002
State of Maharashtra … Appellant
Vs. (Orig. Complainant)
1. Pravin Sampat Chavan )
2. Sampat Anandrao Chavan )
3. Draupadi Sampatrao Chavan )
r/o. Rampur, Tal. Patan, at present )
at Devipada (E), Borivali, Mumbai-66) Respondents
(Orig. Accused Nos.
1 to 3).
Mr.S.R.Agarkar,APP, for the State/Appellant.
None for the respondents.
CORAM: SMT.SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.
DATE : 17th May, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
The State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved by the judgment
and order dated 10.10.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class,
Patan, in RCC No.79 of 1997, thereby acquitting the accused-appellant of
the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 406 read with section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, has filed the present appeal.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are
as follows :-
::: Uploaded on – 19/05/2017 20/05/2017 00:48:15 :::
Mhi 2 Cri-Appeal-461-2002.sxw
One Sangeeta Pravin Chavan lodged a report at the Patan
Police Station on 2.6.1997 alleging therein that she is married to respondent
No.1 on 1.1.1997. That she was residing in her matrimonial house. Within
one week of marriage, her husband and her in-laws started ill-treating her
mentally and physically. Her father had gifted her 35 grams. of gold and
utensils at the time of marriage. There was a demand for more gold. It is
also alleged that her husband had illicit relations with some woman and,
therefore, he was ill-treating her. she was fed up of the ill-treatment and,
therefore, had been to her maternal house. She had apprehended danger at
the hands of her husband. She had stated that her husband is residing at
Mumbai. She had requested the police to return the valuables and the gifts
given to her at the time of marriage. It was specifically mentioned that she
is willing to annul the marriage and that the police should help her for the
same. the said report is marked as Exhibit 28. On the basis of the said
report, Crime No.52 of 1997 was registered against the accused. After
completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 23.7.1997. The case
was registered as RCC No.49 of 1997. The prosecution has examined as
many as five witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
3. PW-1 Sangeeta is the complainant. She has deposed before the Court
that she had filed the report before the police. She has stated in her
::: Uploaded on – 19/05/2017 20/05/2017 00:48:15 :::
Mhi 3 Cri-Appeal-461-2002.sxw
deposition that her husband had informed her that he had illicit relations
with a girl Vijaya and that he had married to the complainant only to fulfill
the wishes of his parents. He had demanded Rs.25,000/- for improvement
of his business. She had been to her maternal house and had informed her
father about the ill-treatment meted out to her on account of demand.
According to her, she was assaulted since her father had not fulfilled the
demand. She has also alleged that her in-laws had also ill-treated her as her
father had not fulfilled the demand. She had been to Mumbai to cohabit
with her husband. That her husband was having a tailoring shop at
Mumbai. He had assaulted her on ground that her father had visited her at
Mumbai.
4. In the cross-examination, she has admitted that the family of
the accused was residing at Mumbai even prior to her marriage and that the
grandmother of her husband was residing in the neighbourhood of her
father. She has also admitted that she had gone to Mumbai on 8.1.1997. A
ceremony was arranged on 10.1.1997. That her husband and father-in-law
are working as tailors. She has also admitted in the cross-examination that
at Mumbai, her husband had disclosed to her that his father was upset
because the quantum of dowry amount was not declared. According to her,
her husband had assaulted her in the procession itself at the time of
::: Uploaded on – 19/05/2017 20/05/2017 00:48:15 :::
Mhi 4 Cri-Appeal-461-2002.sxw
marriage. She resided with her husband at Mumbai for four months. She
had conceived pregnancy and was taking treatment in Siddhnath Clinic and
Savitri Clinic at Mumbai. Prior to her marriage, she was working as an
agent of Sanchyani Investments. She has also admitted that she had not
disclosed to the police that she along with the accused had been to Bondri
for fair and that there was a demand of Rs.25,000/-.
5. It is seen from the substantive evidence that there are inherent
inconsistencies in her deposition. It is pertinent to note that she has
categorically admitted before the Court that she had not cohabited with her
husband after 30.5.1997. She has also admitted that she had given a
telephonic message to her husband that since he has ill-treated her, she does
not wish to continue matrimonial relations and further that she would seek
divorce from him. She has also admitted that she was treated properly for
about 1-1/2 to two months. It is also admitted that while at Mumbai, she
thought it fit to take divorce from husband. That on 3.7.1997, she had given
a report to the police alleging that her husband had illicit relations with
some girl. It also appears from her evidence that she had deliberated with
her family members and thereafter lodged the report.
6. The prosecution has examined the father of PW-1 – Vitthal
Balu Mohite who has also reiterated the contention of PW-1. There are
::: Uploaded on – 19/05/2017 20/05/2017 00:48:15 :::
Mhi 5 Cri-Appeal-461-2002.sxw
material omissions brought on record in the cross-examination of PW-2 –
Vitthal Mohite which goes to the root of the matter. The prosecution has
further examined the brother of PW-1 – Shankar Mohite. He has deposed
before the Court that his sister had failed 10 th Std. examination and only
after marriage they learnt that her husband – accused No.1 had failed 4 th
Std. According to him, he had seen accused No.1 assaulting his sister when
they were going to a fair.
7. PW-5 Hombirrao Kanase is the Investigating Officer, who had
investigated and filed charge-sheet. He has proved the omissions and
contradictions in the substantive evidence of the witness.
8. Upon perusal of evidence, the learned Magistrate has rightly
acquitted the accused of all the charges levelled against him. The learned
Magistrate has assigned justifiable reasons for acquitting the accused as the
guilt of the accused is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, no
interference is called for.
The appeal stands dismissed.
(SMT. SADHANA S.JADHAV, J.)
::: Uploaded on – 19/05/2017 20/05/2017 00:48:15 :::
