The State Of Maharashtra vs Pravin Sampat Chavan & Ors on 17 May, 2017

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

READ  Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 2 June, 2017

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.

READ  Kalpesh Bhupendrabhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat & on 2 August, 2017

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

READ  S.A.Hussainy Alias-vs-State Rep By on 10 August, 2009

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 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *