SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

The State Of Maharashtra vs Arif Karim Shaikh & Ors on 26 October, 2018

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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


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

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 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…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation