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 :::