502-Appeal-28-2002.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.28 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra
(Through A.P.P., J.M.F.C.,
Link No.II, Court No.8, Pune) … Appellant
Vs
1 Arif Karim Shaikh
Age: 28 yrs., Occ: Business,
2 Sharifa Karim Shaikh,
Age: 50 yrs., Occ.:Household,
3 Shamima Arif Shaikh
Age: 30 yrs., Occ: Household,
4 Nazim Karim Shaikh
Age: 25 yrs., Occ: Business,
5 Farida Bandhulal Shaikh,
Age: 35 yrs., Occ: Household,
All r/a. Plot No.38,
Parvati Darshan, Pune … Respondents
…
Mr. Ajay Patil, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Appellant-State.
Mr. Vikas Shivarkar for the Respondent No.1.
CORAM :SANDEEP K. SHINDE J.
DATE : 26TH OCTOER, 2018
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Shivgan 1/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:39 :::
502-Appeal-28-2002.odt
This Appeal is preferred by the State under Section
378(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 inter-alia challenging
the order of acquittal dated 31.7.2001 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Pune in RCC No.43 of 2000.
2 Accused no.1 is the husband of the complainant and
other accused are her in-laws. They were prosecuted for committing
an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
3 In support of the charge, prosecution had examined the
complainant as P.W.1, her father as P.W.2, her paternal uncle as
P.W.3 and P.W.4- Investigating Officer.
4 Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State and Mr. Shivarkar for the Respondent No.1-Accused. Perused
the record and proceedings.
Shivgan 2/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:40 :::
502-Appeal-28-2002.odt
5 It is unfolded in evidence, that:
Complainant married accused no.1 in June, 1997. Soon
thereafter she would complain that since her father had given steel
utensils as gift in marriage, her in-laws were unhappy and were
demanding brass utensils. It is on this count, her husband and in-
laws were beating her. It was her complaint that her husband had
demanded three wheeler Auto and a flat and since not given, she
was beaten mercilessly by her husband. It is her case that for few
days, she was treated well by husband and in-laws but after a brief
period she suffered harassment at the hands of accused. She would
narrate in the evidence that she reported fact of demand to her
father, who then handed over three wheeler Auto to her husband.
She would depose that harassment did no end and continued and,
thus, she lodged a complaint with the police which was registered
under Section 498A of the IPC as Crime No.45 of 2000.
6 Prosecution had examined father and and the paternal
uncle of the complainant. The evidence of these material witnesses
Shivgan 3/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:40 :::
502-Appeal-28-2002.odt
on the point of unlawful demand of three wheeler Auto, flat and
utensils is absolutely vague, in-as-much as better and material
particulars were not brought on record by the prosecution like the
ownership details of three wheeler when it was purchased, cost of it,
its registration certificate, etc. from which it was possible to hold
that three wheeler was given to the accused pursuant to his demand.
Not only this but prosecution had neither placed on record medical
reports of complainant nor examined doctor to hold that she was
admitted in the hospital on account of beatings at the hands of
husband. There is no explanation on record as to why the
prosecution had not examined Doctor and/or placed on record
medical reports of the complainant. It may also be stated that the
complainant in her evidence had stated that before lodging report
with the police, she had filed complaint with Mahila Dakshata
Samiti but in respect thereof, neither the complaint was placed on
record nor office bearers of the said Dakshata Samiti were
examined. Besides, there is no independent witness examined by the
prosecution.
Shivgan 4/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:40 :::
502-Appeal-28-2002.odt
7 Upon appreciating the evidence, I am of the opinion that
there is neither infirmity in the order of acquittal nor perversity in
findings. View taken by the learned JMFC is a possible view and this
Court while sitting in the appeal against the acquittal is not
supposed to substitute its own view unless the finding is perverse or
de-horse to the evidence on record.
8 The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1-
Accused made a statement across the bar that the complainant and
her husband are co-habiting together as husband and wife even
today. Statement is accepted.
9 In view of this, I do not find any substance in the appeal
preferred by the State.
Shivgan 5/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:40 :::
502-Appeal-28-2002.odt
10 In the result, appeal is dismissed and disposed of
accordingly.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J.)
Shivgan 6/6
::: Uploaded on – 30/10/2018 01/11/2018 23:23:40 :::
