1 jUDG.290517 apeal 38.04.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

Criminal Appeal No.38 of 2004

State of Maharashtra
through Police Station Officer
Police Station Virur. …. Appellant.

-Versus-

1] Sanjay Maroti Jaipurkar,
A/a 30 years, Occ.- Cultivation,

2] Sau. Kamlabai Maroti Jaipurkar,
A/a 51 years, Occ.-H/h. work,

3] Maroti Vithoba Jaipurkar,
A/a. 57 years, Occ.-Service,
All r/o.-Tembhurwahi,
Tah. Rajura, Distt. Chandrapur. …. Respondents.
————————————————————————————————–
Shri V.P. Gangane, Addl. P.P. for State.
None for the respondents.
————————————————————————————————–
Coram : Mrs. Swapna Joshi, J.

th
Dated : 29
May, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order

dated 20-10-2003 delivered in Regular Criminal Case No.10 of 2002 by

the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajura, thereby acquitting the

respondents of an offence punishable under Section 498A read with

::: Uploaded on – 31/05/2017 01/06/2017 00:50:33 :::
2 jUDG.290517 apeal 38.04.odt

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2] Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant-

State. None appears for the respondents. I have gone through the record

of the case and the impugned judgment and order.

3] The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State contended

that the judgment delivered by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class,

Rajura is illegal and perverse. He further states that the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Rajura has not considered the testimonies of the

witnesses so also failed to consider the testimony of the victim who has

suffered cruelty at the hands of the accused persons.

4] I have gone through the entire evidence. The prosecution has

examined in all nine witnesses. (PW-1) Shankar Madavi is the father of

the victim. (PW-2) Sau. Bharti is the victim. (PW-3) Sau. Malanbai is the

mother of the victim. (PW-4)Ganpat is a neighbour of the victim. (PW-5)

Daulat and (PW-6) Indutai are the formal witnesses. (PW-7) Bapuji

Bobade is the witness who speaks about the incident of beating the victim

by the accused persons. (PW-8) Subhash and (PW-9) Ambadas are the

Investigating Officers.

5] The prosecution case in brief is that; the victim got married with

accused no.1 in the year 2000 at ‘Saibaba Temple’, Ballarsha. It was a

love marriage. After the marriage, the complainant gave birth to a male

child. It is alleged that the accused persons used to ill-treat the

complainant. They used to beat her because she belongs to ‘Gond’

community. The complainant, therefore, lodged complaint against the

::: Uploaded on – 31/05/2017 01/06/2017 00:50:33 :::
3 jUDG.290517 apeal 38.04.odt

accused persons. The offence was registered. The investigation was

carried out and the charge-sheet was filed.

6] I have gone through the entire evidence of the witnesses and

perused the record. So far as the evidence of (PW-1) Shankar Madavi,

(PW-2) Sau. Bharti and (PW-3) Sau. Malanbai is concerned, all these

witnesses state that the victim was ill-treated by the accused persons.

The accused persons used to beat her, as the victim belongs to “Gond”

community. Apart from the bare statements of all these witnesses, there

is nothing on record to show as to in what manner the victim was ill-treated

by the accused persons. It is also not clear as to why the accused

persons used to beat the victim. The reason comes forward as the

victim belongs to “Gond” community, the accused persons used to beat

her. However, admittedly, it was a love marriage between the accused

no. 1 and the victim. Out of the said wedlock she delivered male child. In

these circumstances, it is not clear, as to why the accused persons

including the accused no.1 would beat the victim only because she

belongs to “Gond” community. As regards the testimony of (PW-4)

Ganpat is concerned, who is the neighbour of the victim, stated that

accused no.1 and accused no.3 used to beat the victim and he used to

hear the noise of quarrels from the house of the accused persons. He

also used to listen the weeping of the complainant. Significantly, during

the cross examination the said witness admitted that there are two houses

between his house and the house of the accused. His house is 100 ft.

away from the house of the accused and he cannot listen properly. He

::: Uploaded on – 31/05/2017 01/06/2017 00:50:33 :::
4 jUDG.290517 apeal 38.04.odt

clarified that if anybody wants to talk with him, he is required to speak

loudly otherwise he cannot hear. In these circumstances, it is not clear

that as to how (PW-4) Ganpat used to listen the noise of the quarrels and

hear the screams of the victim. Thus, (PW-4) Ganpat is not found to be a

reliable witness. Even no reliance can be placed on the testimonies of the

victim, her father and her mother. There is no cogent and convincing

evidence on record to show that the accused persons used to ill-treat the

victim by beating her because she belongs to “Gond” community.

7] There is no illegality or perversity noticed in the judgment delivered

by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajura. It is well settled

principle of law that in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction particularly in

appeal against acquittal, it is not open to this Court to substitute its own

view with a view taken by the lower Court, unless the view taken by the

lower Court is illegal, perverse or against the principle of law.

8] There are no sufficient grounds made out by the appellant/State to

interfere with the impugned judgment and order. In these circumstances,

the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.

JUDGE

Deshmukh

::: Uploaded on – 31/05/2017 01/06/2017 00:50:33 :::