MyNation KnowledgeBase

Landmark Judgments and Articles on Law

Register to Download

498A Acquittal

IN THE COURT OF THE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE,
FIRST CLASS, SANGLI AT SANGLI.

( Presided over by Smt. S. D. Javalgekar)
REGULAR CRIMINAL CASE NO.402/2015

EXH. NO. .

State of Maharashtra, … State
Through Police Station Officer Vishrambaug Police Station.Sangli.

VERSUS
1. Rahul Ramchandra Khedkar, … Accused.
Age­31 Years, Occ.–Service,
2. Sagar Ramchandra Khedkar,
Age­28 Years, Occ.–Service,
3. Sou. Sunita Ramchandra Khedkar,Age­51 Years, Occ.– Household,
4. Ramchandra Rambhaji Khedkar,
Age­61 Years, Occ.– Retired,No.1 to 4 R/o. S. T. Colony, Sangli.
5. Hari Bapu Khedkar,
Age­54 Years, Occ.– Agriculture,R/o. Khed, Tal. Pandharpur,Dist. Solapur.

Learned A.P.P. Smt. J. S. Dake for State.
Learned Advocate Shri. H. M. Patil for accused.

JUDGMENT

(Delivered on 18th May 2018)

The charge­sheet has been filed opposite a indicted for offences punishable underneath Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 review with 34 of a Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Prosecution’s Case:­

02. On and about 26­04­2013 to 08­06­2015 a complainant was mentally and physically tormented by a indicted No.1 to 5 during their residential place during Flat No.1, Bhagyashri Apartment, S.T. Colony, Vishrambaug, Sangli. The indicted No.1 is a father of a complainant, indicted No.2 is a brother­in­law, indicted No.3 is mom in law, indicted No.4 is a father­in­law and No.5 is brother­in­law. The indicted No.3 gave scornful diagnosis to a complainant by observant that, she is incompetent to prepare good food and that she does not dress­up properly, could not act properly. Further indicted No.3 ill­treated her by observant that a kin of complainant have not given sufficient bullion ornaments in a matrimony of complainant and indicted No.1.

Accused No.3 and No.1 always asked a complainant to call her parents, if during all she desires to revisit her maternal home. The indicted No.1 and 3 ill­treated her on sparse issues and used bad denunciation to her. They also gave her beatings and used bad difference to her. The indicted No.1 to 5 demanded an volume of Rs.75,000/­ and 2.5 tolas of bullion from her kin and due this reason gave beatings to her. During a duration of her pregnancy indicted No.1 and 3 invariably insisted her to lift out sex integrity exam and forced her for a same. The conspicuous nuisance continued compartment 08­06­2015 and hence a complainant has lodged FIR with Vishrambaug military hire for a same.

03. On a basement of FIR, C.R. No.135/2015 was registered.

During investigation, mark panchanama was prepared, matrimony invitation label and light check were collected. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested. After execution of investigation, charge­sheet came to be filed.

04. The charges were framed opposite a indicted during Exh.20 for offences punishable underneath Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 review with 34 of a Indian Penal Code, 1860. It was review over and explained in vernacular to a indicted persons to that they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. They have lifted counterclaim that they have been concerned in a fake box that they have reiterated in their sold statements (Exh.54 to 58) accessible vide S. 313 of a Criminal Procedure Code.

05. Following points arise for integrity and we have accessible my commentary thereon with reasons as follows :­ Sr.No. Points for Determination Findings

1 Does a charge infer that, on and about 26­04­2013 to 08­06­2015, in Flat No.1, Bhagyashri Apartment, S.T. Colony, Vishrambaug, Sangli, all a indicted in avail of their common intention, subjected a adviser Sou. Madhuri Rahul Khedkar to cruelty ?

No. 4 Sr.No. Points for Determination Findings

2 Does a charge infer that, during above conspicuous duration and place, all a accused, in avail of their common intention, willingly caused harm to a adviser Sou. Madhuri Rahul Khedkar by means of kicks and fists blows ?

No.

3 Does a charge infer that, on above conspicuous date, time and place, all a accused, in avail of their common intention, intentionally angry to a adviser Sou. Madhuri Rahul Khedkar and thereby gave irritation intending or meaningful it to be approaching that such irritation will means her to mangle a open assent ? No.

4 Does a charge infer that, on above conspicuous duration and place, all a accused, in avail of their common intention, committed rapist danger by melancholy a adviser Sou. Madhuri Rahul Khedkar ? No.

5 What sequence ? As per final

order.

R E A S O N S

06. Prosecution has examined in all 4 witnesses. Informant (PW1) Madhuri Rahul Khedkar (Exh.33), PW2 Pancha witness, Rajkumar Vithal Sathe (Exh.41), PW3 Brother of complainant­ Amol Mohan Pawar (Exh.45) and PW4 Investigating Officer Shri. Dadasaheb Mahadeo Budhavale (Exh.49). FIR antiquated 08­06­2015 (Exh.34), Spot Panchanama (Exh.42), Light Bill Exh.50, Marriage invitation Card Exh.51, Application given to S.P. Sangli antiquated 10­04­2015 (Exh. 52) and focus to P.I. Vishrambaug Police Station (Exh.53).

07. Heard both a sides. Perused a documents.

AS TO POINTS NO.1 TO 4:­

08. The points are inter­connected. Therefore, they are discussed together. It would be fascinating to plead a accessible justification vis­a­vis mixture of a purported offences.

09. Informant (PW1) Madhuri Rahul Khedkar settled in her hearing in arch that indicted No.3 caused nuisance to her by observant that she could not prepare good food and could not act properly. The indicted No.3 always picked­up argue whenever a complainant asked for her revisit to her maternal home. The indicted No.3 also used bad and dirty denunciation to her and gave beatings to her for a same. The indicted No.3 used to insist that, a kin of a complainant should come to their place and accompany their daughter to their home. The indicted No.2 and 4 used to abuse her by observant that, she does not contend herself in correct approach and used bad difference and gave her beatings. The indicted No.1 all a time demanded Rs.75,000/­ from a complainant for purchasing new car and also 2.5 tolas bullion sequence from her parents. The indicted No.3 never authorised a complainant to reside with her father during Pune and insisted her to reside during Sangli. The indicted No.3 all a time told fake things about a complainant to her father i.e. indicted No.1 and lowered her picture before her husband. The indicted No.2 to 4 used to keep a complainant on starvation and gave beatings to her.

10. After few days when she was profound a indicted No.3 insisted a complainant to control sex integrity exam to that a complainant denied. For this reason a indicted started badgering her on opposite grounds. The indicted No.5 called a complainant and talked to her in bad denunciation while on a call. The complainant gave birth to baby lady and when she gave this news to a accused, they were dissapoint due to birth of lady child. They insisted her that she should move Rs.75,000/­ and 2.5 tolas of bullion sequence while returning to her matrimonial home, if she fails a doors of their home will be sealed for her. The indicted persons always conspicuous that, they wanted a baby child for their family and now if a censure has given birth to baby lady she has no place during her matrimonial home. After that a complainant requested several times to indicted No.1 to take her to her matrimonial home, though he deliberately avoided to do so. The complainant is during her maternal home given 08­02­2014 compartment today.

11. In her cross­examination she certified that a indicted No.3 and 4 had accompanied her to Pune to dump her during a place of her father i.e. indicted No.1. She also certified that she visited her maternal home on a arise of Raksha­Bandhan and other festivals. She serve certified that she resided during a place of indicted No.1 i.e. her father during Pune for about 3 to 4 months. She serve certified that indicted No.2 is portion during Walchand College, Sangli as a Professor. But she was not wakeful of his timing as he used to be frequently during home. She also certified that a financial condition of her father is improved than her parents. She also certified that her father already had 4 wheeler during a time of their marriage. She serve certified that during this duration she was not prone to board FIR opposite a indicted for a nuisance caused to her by them. She serve certified that, when she was pregnant, indicted No.3 accompanied her to a sanatorium during her treatment. She also certified that indicted No.1 to 4 have borne Rs.35,000/­ for a squeeze of her garments during a time of their marriage. She also certified that indicted No.3 and 4 have purchased tiny ganthan, bullion ring, large ganthan, china leg sequence (Painjan) and pearl neck­lace (??????????? ???) in her marriage. She serve certified that she has not mentioned in a FIR that, a indicted had demanded income for purchasing of 4 wheeler. She also certified that indicted No.3 used to accompany her for dusk walking during duration of her pregnancy. She serve certified that Adv. Manoj Inamdar is a family crony of her maternal kin and they find his recommendation in certain authorised matters.

See also  SAMPLE RTI to Get Marriage Certificate Copy

12. She privately certified that indicted No.5 never resided during her matrimonial home with a other matrimonial relatives. She serve certified that she could not state a date, time as to when indicted No.3 insisted her to control a sex integrity test. She also certified that indicted No.5 lodged censure with Karkamb Police Station opposite her father, hermit and uncle. She certified that she has changed combined censure on 10­04­2015 during a bureau of S.P. Sangli. She privately certified that, in this censure with a S.P. that, she has not mentioned that indicted No.2 to 4 used bad denunciation to her and gave her beatings. She serve certified that indicted No.2 to 4 were benefaction for a cradle rite of her daughter. She serve certified that indicted No.1 sent her authorised notice claiming divorce from her on 29­ 03­2015. She also certified that she had willingly been to her matrimonial home after a birth of her daughter. But she had not mentioned this fact in her censure or focus and has mentioned during initial time before a Court. She privately certified that before a focus for divorce by indicted No.1 was filed, she had never complained about a mental and earthy nuisance caused to her by indicted No.1 to 5. She also certified that after camp a benefaction FIR she had never been to her matrimonial home. Except these admissions zero came on record during a cross­examination of a complainant, that would assistance a accused.

13. PW2 Rajkumar (Panch) settled in his hearing in arch that, he visited Flat No.1, Bhagyashri Apartment, S.T. Colony alongwith Akshay Bansode. Panchanama was carried out in his participation and is duly valid in evidence. In his cross­examination he certified that he does not know as to how many floors exists in Bhagyashree Apartment. He serve certified that he has no suspicion about a instruction of a categorical doorway of prosaic No.1 of Bhagyashri Apartment. He also certified that when he visited a mark during a panchanama, a participation or deficiency of any chairman is not mentioned in a panchanama.

14. PW3 Amol settled in his hearing in arch that, a complainant Madhuri used to surprise him as to a mental and earthy woe inflicted on her by a indicted persons. She also used to surprise certain incidents when she visited her maternal home for festivals. He serve settled that a indicted persons demanded Rs.75,000/­ from her and 2.5 tolas of bullion from her parents. He serve settled that his sister i.e. complainant Madhuri requested them to perform a final of a indicted persons. He serve settled that a indicted persons denied a complainant to stay during her matrimonial home and refused to accept her calls and dropped contacts with her.

15. In his cross­examination PW3 Amol certified that, indicted No.1 is staying during Pune for a purpose of his pursuit and many of a times is taken during prosaic No.1 Bhagyashri Apartment. He settled that his sister, complainant Madhuri resided for a duration of few months usually during her husband’s place i.e during Pune and many of a time she resided during prosaic No.1, Bhagyashri Apartment with her in laws. He serve certified that indicted No.2 is portion during Walchand College, Sangli given a time of matrimony of complainant and indicted No.1 and also today. He serve certified that he has not settled in his matter before a military that a indicted persons, mentally and physically tormented a complainant Madhuri on opposite grounds. He serve privately certified that a indicted persons were benefaction for a cradle rite of daughter of his sister i.e. complainant Madhuri. He afterwards privately certified that conjunction he nor his father accompanied complainant Madhuri to her matrimonial home for co­habitation after a cradle rite of her daughter. He also certified that in a year 2015 indicted had released notice to a complainant on a drift that she is not prepared for cohabitation with indicted No.1 and thereby claimed divorce from her. These were a element admissions by a witness.

16. PW4 Dadasaheb Budhavale, I.O. settled in his hearing in arch that, he visited a mark of occurrence and carried out panchanama in participation of dual panchas. He duly valid a panchanama and certified a contents. He procured a light check of prosaic No.1, Bhagyashri Apartment, that bears a name of indicted persons as owners of a conspicuous flat. He conducted a review and filed charge­sheet opposite a accused. In his review it suggested that a indicted persons illegally demanded income and bullion from a complaint. They also inflicted mental and earthy nuisance to a complainant and pressurized her to control sex integrity test. In his cranky hearing he certified that, he has not accessible a statements of a persons staying in a circuitously flats. He also certified that a area where Bhagyashri Apartment is situated is a crowdy area and a conspicuous unit is during a stretch of ½ km from Vishrambaug Police Station.

17. The declare PW4 Dadasaheb serve certified that he himself has not conducted any review in honour of focus during Exh.52. He serve certified that a name of indicted No.5 is not mentioned in a focus during Exh.52. He serve settled that he has not carried out any review in honour of any minute or notice sent to a complainant by a accused. He serve certified that he has no believe about a mobile series or land­line series of a indicted persons. He serve settled that hermit of complainant i.e. PW3 has settled in his matter before a military that a indicted persons used to bluster a complainant by giving her confinement of beatings. He serve privately certified that he has carried out a panchanama in a military station.

18. DISCUSSION :­

A) Illegal Demands:­

It has come in a justification of a complainant PW1 that a indicted no.1 demanded Rs. 75,000/­ from her on a count of squeeze of new car and also 2.5 tolas bullion chain. The conspicuous allegations are advanced by her hermit Amol PW3 and I.O. PW4. The complainant has unsuccessful to move on record as to that car a indicted no.1 elite to purchase. Also how and when did he done a bootleg demands. Certain instances like squeeze of garments of complainant and bullion ornaments during a time of matrimony are certified by a complainant. It shows that a indicted were in good financial condition that is certified by a complainant in her cranky examination. The indicted owned 4 wheeler and dual wheeler before matrimony of complainant and indicted no.1 that indicates that they are financially sound. Accused no. 1 is operative during Pune and indicted no.2 is portion during Walchand College, Sangli. If during all they wished to approach an volume or a bullion attire afterwards since usually tiny volume in thousands given they could have demanded some some-more amount. The control of a indicted and a admissions given by a complainant do not slip towards combining perspective that a indicted persons can be termed as miserly people. Hence by deliberation a justification on record, no probability is done out that they contingency have tormented a complainant for their demands.

See also  Whether application for amendment is subject to period of limitation?

B) Ill­treatment/Mental and Physical Harassment :­

(i) The complainant has settled in her hearing in arch that indicted no. 2 to 4 used to taunt her that she does not dress adult scrupulously and can't prepare good peculiarity food. The complainant has allegations opposite a indicted no. 3 especially on a drift that she used to argue with a complainant that her maternal kin should come to their place to take a complainant to her maternal home and dump her again to their place. Also indicted no. 3 used to abuse her by regulating bad difference and used to give her beatings. The indicted no. 3 did not concede her to reside with her father during Pune and compelled her to stay during Sangli. Accused No. 2 to 4 used to keep a complainant on starvation, gave beatings to her and accursed her on sparse issues. But a complainant has unsuccessful to move on record a accurate difference used by a indicted during a time of their quarrels. No specific date or time or arise is mentioned by a complainant when a indicted persons subjected her to cruelty. No clever belligerent done out to interpretation that a indicted caused mental nuisance to a complainant. Petty issues are partial of unsentimental life and are compulsory to be resolved during that time itself. No family exist though differences though they should be rubbed with a extended impending and in a gratification of whole family and not for good being of an individual.

(ii) Accused no. 5 never resided with a complainant underneath one roof is an certified fact by a complainant. She has also certified that she has not mentioned in her news with a military antiquated 10/04/15 that indicted no. 2 to 4 gave beatings to her and used bad difference to her.

(iii) Spot panchnama in such kind of offences is formal. It is not approaching from a panch declare or a I.O. that they should have believe about a series of stairs or a floors or a series of flats or a instruction of a flat/apartment. Also a prosaic is owned by a indicted is not denied by them. The sum as to a mobile series of accused, receipts, etc are not brought on record as understanding evidence. C) Compelled to control sex integrity test:­

Though a complainant has privately purported that a indicted forced her to control sex integrity test, there is zero brought on record to that effect. Her allegations in this aspect are singular upto indicted no. 3 only. But she unsuccessful to inspect a M.O. in that context. The complainant did not even inspect any other chairman of a sanatorium where she used to take diagnosis during her pregnancy. Also a conspicuous exam is not conducted stays a fact. Mere verbal allegations are not sufficient to reason a indicted persons guilty for a conspicuous allegations.

19. Provisions of Law :­ Section 498­A of I.P.C. – Husband or relations of father of a lady subjecting her to cruelty – Whoever, being a father or a relations of a father of a woman, subjects such lady to cruelty shall be punished.

Explanation – (b) nuisance of a lady where such nuisance is with a perspective to coercing her or any chairman associated to her to accommodate any wrong approach for any skill or profitable confidence or is on comment of disaster by her or any chairman associated to her to accommodate such demand.

20. The schooled Advocate for indicted has relied on a following box laws ­

(I) ‘STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S. NAVNATH EKNATH JAIGUDE’, (2009 ALL (CRI) 1497, in that a Hon’ble Bombay High Court has reason that ­

‘Cruelty and nuisance purported by charge deceptive and ubiquitous in nature. Hence, any and any nuisance is not sufficient to reason a indicted guilty. It is usually that nuisance that eventually army a defunct to dedicate self-murder that is element and can be taken into account.’

In a box in palm there is zero on record brought by a charge that proves that a complainant Madhuri was mentally and physically tormented to a border that she attempted to dedicate suicide. But in a after partial of a section, nuisance in opposite kinds is contemplated. In a benefaction box a complainant unsuccessful to infer a purported nuisance to such extent. No such instances are brought on record to contend that a complainant was subjected to cruelty.

(II) ‘MUKESH S/O. RAMSWARUP PASHINE V/S. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA’, (2006 ALL MR (CRI) N.O.C. 62, in that a Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur bench) has reason that ­

‘Prosecution evidence, store of stray­tales stories, that even taken together does not make a finish story of ill­treatment. The testimonies of charge witnesses are not relating to any other. Hence, it would be intensely unsure to rest on such peculiarity of charge justification where zero comes out consistently. ‘

In a box in palm there is no instance of mis­matching of a testimonies of a charge witnesses. Though they are not mis relating are not sufficient to crook a accused. The fact contention as to a testimony of a charge witnesses is taken in a germane paragraphs.

(III) ‘JAYAWANTABAI W/O. SATYADEO SADAFALE V/S. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA’, (2008 ALL MR (CRI) 189, in that a Hon’ble Bombay High Court (Nagpur bench) has reason that ­

‘In box of approach of dowry, dowry is of any skill given or concluded to be given before or after a matrimony in tie with marriage. If is was not concluded to be given in tie with marriage, that might turn wrong approach during a most, though can't be treated as a approach for dowry. It contingency be shown that earthy nuisance was such that any chairman would have elite to put an finish to a life instead of temperament earthy harassment.’

In a box in palm a complainant has not committed self-murder or attempted for a same. The drift of causing self-murder are grave and depending on many other resources like mental capability of a victim, her toleration level, her ubiquitous opinion towards a surroundings, etc. In a benefaction box a nuisance as purported is not adequate to retaliate a accused. Certain differences in family exists though it can't be conspicuous that there is no range for alleviation and a same shall continue.

(IV) ‘STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V/S. KALIDINDI SAHADEVUDU & ORS’, (2012 CRI.L.J. 2302, in that a Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has reason that ­

‘The indicted by clearly commenting that defunct was not begetting children can't be conspicuous to have committed cruelty within a definition of Section 498­A.’

In a box in palm there are no such allegations of a charge that a indicted persons mentally tormented a complainant on a count of ‘not begetting children.’ Hence, a benefaction box law is not germane in a box in hand.

(V) ‘SANJAY JAIN V/S. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH’, (2013 CRI L.J. 668, in that a Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has reason that ­

See also  498A Quash - General, Hearsay accusation

‘The fact that there used to be some quarrels between a defunct and a accused, though no justification on record that he used to theme her to nuisance or to cruelty such as causing grave damage to life or limb.’ In a box in palm there is justification in a inlet of testimony of a complainant about a harassment. Quarrels are partial of slight life and unavoidable given there are differences in views of a people staying together. Nothing is on record display any grave or critical damage to a complainant.

(VI) ‘BAIJNATH AND OTHERS V/S. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH’, (AIR 2016 SUPREME COURT 5313), in that a Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court has reason that ­

‘Prosecution unsuccessful to valid accurate means of genocide or defunct as to either it was suicidal or homicidal. Ingredients of cruelty and nuisance not valid by approach and reasoning justification and not sufficient by itself to reason indicted persons guilty of corruption underneath Section 498­A.’ In a box in palm there are no substantial evidences on record to uncover a purported cruelty on a complainant that is sufficient to expostulate her to dedicate suicide. Also no such allegations are made. Hence a box law is germane to a box in hand.

(VII) ‘STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH V/S. M. MADHUSUDHAN RAO’, (SUPREME COURT), in that a Andhra Pradesh High Court has reason that ­

‘Delaying in filing censure with no value reason raises doubt per a genuineness of a complainant digest it vulnerable to bottom a self-assurance of a accused.

In a box in palm a complainant had plenty eventuality to take correct movement opposite a accused. She kept wordless compartment a divorce petition was filed. Also no reasonable belligerent is shown to explain a check that creates a doubt as to a credit of a complainant. The reference is therefore germane to a box in hand.

21. Grounds to mistrust a charge story :­

A) No sum as to time, date and arise of any of a purported earthy or mental nuisance is brought on record and valid in justification by a complainant.

B) Parents of a adviser are not examined who are equally critical declare as that of complainant herself. The bootleg final as purported were done to them by a complainant. They should have stepped into a declare box and settled a nuisance caused to their daughter. This control compels to pull a disastrous deduction and creates doubt as to a genuineness of a charge story.

C) No medical certificate is brought on record to infer a earthy cruelty/ nuisance and a injuries postulated by a complainant. Also no medication or any sum as to any exam conducted on a complainant is brought on record. No M.O. is examined to strengthen a box of a prosecution. No sum as to a physique partial where a damage was inflicted or a outline of a wound or beatings is mentioned in a FIR or in her hearing in chief.

D) The complainant has certified that a financial condition of a indicted was improved than her parents. They owned a flat, 4 wheeler and dual wheeler before matrimony of a complainant and indicted no. 1. Also it is certified by a complainant that a indicted have purchased golden ornaments for her and spent Rs. 35,000/­ for her garments in a matrimony of complainant and a indicted no. 1. This fact does not emanate any bottom to cruise a allegations of a complainant as to a bootleg final to be true.

E) Lodging of FIR by a complainant after a divorce petition was filed by a indicted no. 1 itself reveals that it is a after suspicion routine of a complainant and done out of some personal hate opposite a accused. She had plenty eventuality to take correct movement opposite a indicted though she unsuccessful to do so. She never attempted to lapse to her matrimonial home inspite of a fact that a indicted persons were regularly seeking her to come for cohabitation. Also she never visited her matrimonial home willingly for cohabitation. As a final attempt, a indicted no.1 sent her authorised notice since she did not come for cohabitation inspite of several requests.

F) Accused no. 5 never resided with a complainant underneath one roof. Hence a allegations done opposite him are baseless. No specific difference are brought on record by a complainant to attract a purported offences.

G) It is privately certified by a I.O. that he had prepared a panchnama during Police hire instead of scheming a same during a mark of incident. This creates a clever belligerent to doubt on a correctness and genuineness of a panchanama.

H) Allegations as to constrained a complainant to stay during Sangli and not during Pune is there inner family arrangement that keeps on changing as a resources changes. Undue significance is given to this cause by a complainant. In todays era, many couples live apart from any other due to their contention /job form or out of certain family arrangements. This sold aspect can't be termed as causing cruelty to a womanlike of that family.

I) It is certified by a complainant that all indicted persons were benefaction for a cradle rite of her daughter. This shows a impasse of a indicted chairman and their belongingness towards a baby lady and in a complainant also. If during all they were dissapoint on a birth of lady child they would have reacted in a opposite way.

J) No transparent allegations opposite indicted no. 2, 4, 5. No sum mentioned as to how they caused ill­treatment to a complainant. No specific eventuality mentioned by a complainant.

K) Whole story formed on deceptive allegations as to harassment. Only verbal contentions of a complainant though any ancillary evidence. Hence a mixture of a corruption can't be conspicuous to be proved.

22. Considering a inlet of offence, it is essential to note here that these kinds of offences are quite matrimonial offences wherein a persons of one family are involved. Due to a differences in opinion and a mindset of these persons, misunderstandings are combined that after on give arise to quarrels and that lead to several offences. Every chairman in a family is compulsory to keep a extended perspective and hoop a situations and adversities in a seductiveness of a family and not in foster of any individual. Hence, holding into care whole justification on record, we answer indicate No.1 to 4 in a negative.

23. From a above discussion, it becomes transparent that, a charge has unsuccessful to infer a allegations opposite a indicted over reasonable doubts. Though in such offences special weightage should be given to a chronicle of a complainant, it should also be advanced by other understanding evidence. In deficiency of such justification deceptive allegations of a complainant can't be taken as true. There are many instances in multitude wherein females of mischievous inlet spoil

the family assent by creation fake allegations and by unnecessarily involving trusting persons in a offence. From a contention above, we find no piece in a several allegations of a complainant. Hence, we reason that indicted persons are trusting and not probable for a offences punishable underneath Section 498A, 323, 504 and 506 of a Indian Penal Code. Hence, to answer Point No.5, we ensue to pass following order.

ORDER

01. The Accused No. 1 to 5 are hereby clear for a corruption punishable underneath Sections 498(A), 323, 504 and 506 review with 34 of Indian Penal ode,1860 vide Section 248(1) of a Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.

02. Bail holds of all indicted persons stands cancelled.

(Dictated, conspicuous and sealed in open Court.)

Sangli (Smt. S.D. Javalgekar)

Date : 18/05/2018 Judicial Magistrate First Class
(Court No.5) Sangli.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine


All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Important SC/HC Judgements on 498A IPC
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

CopyRight @ MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, though No Lawyer will give we Advice like We do

Please review Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You determine afterwards Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We hoop Women Centric inequitable laws like False Section 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

See also  Voluntary Gifts given by parents and others to bride, bridegroom out of love and affection is not dowry
MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation