Anil Gopalrao Chore (In Jail) & … vs State Of Mah. Thru. P.S.O on 11 August, 2017

Judgment

revn311.07 15

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.311 OF 2007

1) Anil s/o Gopalrao Chore,
Aged about 31 years, Occupation Labour.

2) Smt. Sumitrabai Gopalrao Chore,
Aged about 28 years, Occupation Agriculturist,

All R/o Benoda, Taluka Warud,
District Amravati (M.S.)
(Presently both are in Central Prison,
Amravati). ….. Applicants.

:: VERSUS ::

State of Maharashtra, through P.S.O.
Benoda, Police Station, District Amravati. ….. Non-applicant.

Shri J.B. Kasat, Counsel for the Applicant.
Shri R.S. Nayak, Addl.P.P. for the Non-applicant/State.

CORAM : V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : AUGUST 11, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Heard learned counsel Shri J.B. Kasat for the

…..2/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::
Judgment

revn311.07 15

2

applicants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri R.S.

Nayak for the non-applicant/State.

2. Learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Warud

on 15.10.2004 in Regular Criminal Case No.85 of 2000

convicted the present applicants and father Gopalrao Chore

of applicant No.1 for the offence punishable under Section

498A of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Magistrate

sentenced applicant No.1 Anil s/o Gopalrao Chore to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay a fine of

Rs.1000/-. Applicant No.2 Smt. Sumitrabai Gopalrao Chore

was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 9 months

and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.

Similarly, applicant No.1 was convicted for the

offence punishable under Section 323 of the Indian Penal

Code and was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment

…..3/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::
Judgment

revn311.07 15

3

for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.500. So also, he was

convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of the

Indian Penal Code and on that count he is sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay a fine of

Rs.500/-.

Applicant No.2 was also convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal

Code and on that count she is sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for 3 months and to pay a fine of

Rs.300.

An appeal was carried by the applicants being

Criminal Appeal No.50 of 2004. During the pendency of the

said appeal, original accused No.2 Gopalrao Chore died and,

therefore, his appeal was abated. On 29.10.2007, learned

Lower Appellate Court dismissed the appeal. The applicants

…..4/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::
Judgment

revn311.07 15

4

were taken into custody. This Court on 5.12.2007 released the

applicants on bail.

3. PW1 complainant Shila lodged an oral report

Exhibit 19 with Benoda Police Station, District Amravati. On

the basis of the same, a printed first information report

Exhibit 20 was drawn by registering an offence punishable

under Sections 498A, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code vide Crime No.29 of 2000.

4. As per the first information report, marriage

between applicant No.1 and complainant Shila took place on

20.5.1996. In the first information report it is stated that at

the time of marriage, there was a demand of dowry and,

therefore, the father of complainant Shila sold his

agricultural property and performed the marriage. For 6

months, relations were cordial. Thereafter, applicant No.1

…..5/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::
Judgment

revn311.07 15

5

purchased a house at village Pala for Rs.12,000/-. That time,

applicant No.1 asked complainant Shila that she should bring

money from her parents. That time, complainant Shila

thought that there will be their own house and, therefore,

she brought Rs.10,000/- from her father and, thereafter,

house was purchased. Complainant Shila further states that

after 5 months, applicant No.1 again demanded Rs.25,000/- for

purchasing a motorcycle. It is also stated in the first

information report that on the dispute between herself and

applicant No.1, applicant No.1 assaulted complainant Shila

and tried to administer poison. However, the said incident

was averted due to mediation by some other persons.

5. On 20.9.1999, complainant Shila was reached to

her parental house for delivery. There, she was for about 4

months. Still, applicant No.1 failed to fetch complainant Shila

to her matrimonial house and, therefore, when she along with

…..6/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::
Judgment

revn311.07 15

6

her brother came to Benoda, they noticed that the house was

locked.

6. Investigating officer investigated the matter and

filed charge-sheet before the Court of law. In all 5 witnesses

were examined before learned Magistrate.

7. The first information report is not a substantive

piece of evidence. Though in the first information report it is

stated by complainant Shila that her father was required to

sell an agricultural land to perform the marriage, the said fact

was not stated by the first informant during course of her

evidence nor on that point PW2 Rambhau, father of

complainant Shila, is stating in that behalf. On the contrary,

complainant Shila in her deposition has stated that her father

has given Rs.25,000/- by way of Kanyadan. Thus, the said

amount was given by PW2 Rambhau voluntarily. Further,

…..7/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::
Judgment

revn311.07 15

7

during course of evidence it is also stated by complainant

Shila that after marriage, the couple was residing in a rented

house. As per the evidence of complainant Shila, applicant

No.1 asked her to bring Rs.10,000/- for purchasing a house.

Therefore, amount of Rs.10,000/- was brought by complainant

Shila. In my view, this amount of Rs.10,000/- will not be a

demand since complainant Shila’s husband was requiring the

said amount to purchase a house property. If a request is

made to extend a financial help to the father-in-law through

wife, in my view, it cannot be termed as a demand for dowry.

8. Though complainant Shila has stated in the first

information report so also in her evidence that applicant No.1

tried to administer poison to her, the said matter was not

reported to the police. An act of administering poison is a

very serious matter. In absence of the report, it would be very

difficult to accept the bare words of complainant Shila

…..8/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::
Judgment

revn311.07 15

8

without there being any corroboration from any attending

circumstance.

9. Complainant Shila herself has admitted in her

examination-in-chief that at the time of second delivery, since

there was no money with applicant No.1, she had been to her

parental house for cesarean and she was there for a period of

4 months. From her evidence it is clear that deceased accused

and applicant No.2 were not residing with complainant Shila.

In spite of that, they were roped in by complainant Shila.

10. From letters Exhibits 27 and 28, which are written

by complainant Shila to her father Rambhau, no doubt there

is a whisper of some demand. However, in my view, that by

itself is not sufficient to reach to a conclusion that there was a

harassment to complainant Shila at hands of applicant No.1.

Notably, these letters were not filed at the time of filing of the

…..9/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::
Judgment

revn311.07 15

9

charge-sheet and those were produced on record at the time

of evidence of complainant Shila.

11. Looking to the nature of evidence, it is crystal

clear that applicant No.2 was unnecessarily roped into the

crime and she deserves clean acquittal. Insofar as applicant

No.1 is concerned, even against him the demand, as sought to

be put forth by complainant Shila, in my view, is not

conclusively proved. Consequently, I pass the the following

order:

O R D E R

i) Criminal Revision Application No.311 of 2007 is

hereby allowed.

ii) Judgment and order passed by learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class at Warud on 15.10.2004 in

Regular Criminal Case No.85 of 2000 so also

…..10/-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::

Judgment

revn311.07 15

10

judgment and order passed by learned Ad hoc

District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge at

Amravati on 29.10.2007 in Criminal Appeal No.50 of

2004, are hereby quashed and set aside.

iii) The applicants are acquitted of the offence

punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860.

iv) Insofar as offences punishable under Sections

323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are

concerned, there is no evidence at all to record a

conviction.

JUDGE

!! BRW !!

…../-

::: Uploaded on – 19/08/2017 20/08/2017 01:37:01 :::

Leave a Comment

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