1 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.62 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra. ]
(Through Koregaon Police Station) ] … Appellant /
Orig. Complainant
Versus
1. Govindrao Dhairyashil Jadhav. ]
Age – 28, ]
R/o. – Bhaktawadi, Tal. Koregaon. ]
2. Smt. Suhila Dhairyashil Jadhav. ]
Age – 55, ] … Dismissed vide
R/o. – Bhaktawadi, Tal. Koregaon. ] Order dtd.19/08/06
3. Kum. Anita Dhairyashil Jadhav. ]
Age – 22, ]
R/o. – Bhaktawadi, Tal. Koregaon. ]
4. Sou. Vanita Laxman Jagdale. ]
Age – 32, ]
R/o. – Vyankatesh Society, Godoli, Satara. ]
5. Laxman Tukaram Jagdale. ]
Age – 30, ]
R/o. – Vyankatesh Society, Godoli, Satara. ]
6. Ajit Dnyanadev Phalake. ]
Age – 35, ]
R/o. – Rahimatpur, Tal. Koregaon. ]
7. Sudhakar Marutrao Mane. ]
Age – 35, ]
R/o. – Rahimatpur, Tal. Koregaon. ] … Respondents
URS 1 of 15
::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
2 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
Ms. S. S. Kaushik, APP for State – Appellant.
None for Respondents.
CORAM :- SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE :- 27 SEPTEMBER, 2018
JUDGMENT :-
1. This Appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra
challenging the Judgment and Order dated 21/02/2002 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Koregaon (‘JMFC’), in Regular
Criminal Case No.166 of 1996 on his file. By the impugned Judgment
and Order, the Respondents herein were acquitted from the charges of
commission of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and
506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Respondent Nos.1 to
7 herein were the original accused nos.1 to 7. During the pendency of
the present Appeal, the Respondent No.2 expired and therefore, the
Appeal did not survive against her.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is as under :
The FIR was lodged by Sangeeta Jadhav who was the wife
of the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.2 was the mother of the
Respondent No.1. The Respondent Nos.3 and 4 are the sisters of the
URS 2 of 15
::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
3 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.5 is the husband of the
Respondent No.4. The Respondent Nos.6 and 7 are the cousins of the
Respondent No.1. Sangeeta got married with the Respondent No.1 on
29/03/1992. It is the case of the first informant Sangeeta that she
was treated properly for about a year after her marriage. In 1993, the
Respondent No.5’s mother was hospitalized in Mumbai. The
Respondent Nos.1 and 5 had gone to Mumbai to see her. At that time,
Sangeeta’s father was residing in Mumbai and therefore, these 2
Respondents visited him. According to Sangeeta, the Respondent
No.1 claimed that he and the Respondent No.5 were not treated
properly by Sangeeta’s father and they were offended because of this
indifferent behaviour. On returning to Bhaktawadi, District – Satara,
the Respondent No.1 quarreled with Sangeeta. According to
Sangeeta, the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 beat her. Sangeeta has
further alleged that the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 told her to bring 2
tolas gold or money for the purpose of laying a pipeline in the field.
On Sangeeta’s refusal, she was harassed further. On one occasion, the
Respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 dropped her at Arabwadi and asked her
to go to her parental house. After that, Sangeeta’s father gave 2 tolas
gold to the accused – Respondents but the harassment continued. On
URS 3 of 15
::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
4 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
this occasion, the harassment was for coercing her to bring colour TV,
tape-recorder and motorcycle. Sangeeta was informed that the
Respondent No.1 had contracted second marriage and the
Respondents drove Sangeeta out of her matrimonial house. She came
back to her parental house and lodged her FIR at Koregaon Police
Station vide C.R.No.98 of 1996 under Sections 498A, 323, 504 and
506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was
carried out. Sangeeta produced 2 letters and a chit written by her to
her father, brother and uncle at the relevant time. At the conclusion
of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was tried before
the learned JMFC, Koregaon vide R.C.C.No.166 of 1996. The
Respondents faced the charges under the afore-mentioned Sections of
the Indian Penal Code.
3. During trial, the prosecution examined first informant PW
1 Sangeeta Jadhav. PW 2 Vishwanath Bhilare was the father of the
PW 1. PW 3 Sanjay Bhilare was the brother of the PW 1 and PW 4
ASI Subhash Tarate is the Investigating Officer. The Respondents did
not examine any witness on their behalf. Their defence is that a false
case was lodged against them to harass them.
URS 4 of 15
::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
5 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
4. PW 1 Sangeeta is the first informant, as mentioned earlier.
She has deposed that after her marriage on 29/03/1992 with the
Respondent No.1, for one year, she was treated properly. They were
residing together at Bhaktawadi. In the year 1993, Respondent No.5’s
mother was hospitalized in Mumbai. The Respondent Nos.1 and 5
visited her at Mumbai. At that time, PW 2 was residing at Mumbai.
When the Respondent No.1 came back to Bhaktawadi, he complained
that he was not treated properly by PW 2 and on that count, picked-
up quarrel with Sangeeta. She has deposed that the Respondent
Nos.1, 2 and 3 beat her on that ground. She has further deposed that
at that time, the Respondent No.1 was laying a pipeline in his field
and asked Sangeeta to bring two tolas of gold or money for that
purpose from her parents. Sangeeta refused to oblige and therefore,
again she was beaten by the Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. She was
deprived of food and clothes. She has further deposed that after this,
she was treated properly for one month. It is her case that the
Respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 then dropped her to Arabwadi and
asked her to bring 2 tolas of gold. She has further deposed that the
Respondent No.6 threatened her. Thereafter, she came to her father’s
(PW 2) house. She resided there for about four months. After that,
URS 5 of 15
::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
6 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
Sangeeta’s father and brother gave 2 tolas told to the Respondent
No.1. Sangeeta then resided with the Respondent No.1 for a few days
and she was treated properly, but again the harassment started. On
this occasion, she was harassed for a demand of colour TV, tape-
recorder and motorcycle. She has further deposed that the
Respondent No.1 informed her that he had contracted second
marriage and thereafter drove her our of her matrimonial house.
Sangeeta then again came back to her father’s house and lodged her
FIR with Koregaon Police Station. The FIR is produced at Exhibit.42.
Sangeeta also produced 2 letters and a chit which she had written to
her father, brother and uncle at the relevant time. These three
documents are produced on record at Exh.43, 44 and 45.
5. She was cross-examined extensively on behalf of the
Respondents. In the cross-examination, she has accepted that she was
not able to tell as to when the Respondent No.1 fought with her on
the ground that PW 2 i.e. complainant’s father, did not treat him well
in Mumbai. She further admitted that the Respondent No.1 laid a
pipeline in his field in the year 1993 itself. She was unable to state as
to when the Respondent Nos.1 to 4 asked her to bring 2 tolas of gold.
URS 6 of 15
::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
7 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
She has admitted that she did not take any treatment from a doctor
when she was assaulted on her leg by the Respondent No.1. She was
also unable to tell when exactly or approximately the Respondent
Nos.4, 5 and 6 dropped her at Arabwadi. She was also unable to tell
as to when her father gave 2 tolas of gold to the Respondents. Her
cross-examination revealed that the Respondent No.3 Anita was
handicapped. She has further admitted that the Respondent Nos.4 to
7 were not concerned with the daily routine of the Respondent Nos.1
to 3. She has further admitted that there was no mention of the letters
Exh.43. 44 and 45 in her FIR.
6. PW 2 Vishwanath Bhilare is the father of PW 1 Sangeeta.
He has deposed about Respondent Nos.1 and 5’s visit to his house at
Mumbai. He has deposed that Sangeeeta informed him subsequently
that the Respondent No.1 was unhappy with the treatment PW 2 gave
the Respondent No.1 during his visit to Mumbai and on that count,
the Respondent No.1 was harassing PW 1. He has further deposed
that the Respondents demanded money for laying a pipeline in the
field. He has further deposed that he gave 2 tolas of gold to the
Respondents but the harassment of Sangeeta continued. He has
URS 7 of 15
::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
8 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
further deposed that Sangeeta was harassed on the ground that the
Respondents considered her to be unlucky. He has further deposed
that the Respondent Nos.5 to 7 were instigating the Respondent No.1
to live separately from Sangeeta as she was unlucky. He has further
deposed that on 11/05/1996, the Respondents had beaten Sangeeta
and drove her out of her matrimonial house and she came to reside in
his house. When she came back to PW 2’s house, she lodged her FIR.
7. In the cross-examination, PW 2 has admitted that in the
year 1996, he was ill and Sangeeta had gone to meet him in the
hospital and since then, Sangeeta was residing with him. He has
deposed in his cross-examination that the police did not record his
statement, neither did they record the statement of his wife.
8. PW 3 Sanjay Bhilare was the brother of PW 1 Sangeeta.
He has deposed about the Respondent Nos.1 to 5’s visit to Mumbai
and Sangeeta’s harassment at their hands after their visit. But, of
course, he did not have any personal knowledge about this
harassment and he was informed about it by Sangeeta. He has
deposed that he himself and his uncle Kashinath went to the house of
URS 8 of 15
::: Uploaded on – 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
9 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc
the Respondents to convince them to treat Sangeeta properly. He has
further deposed that at that time, they offered 2.½ tolas of gold to the
Respondents. PW 3 has further deposed that even thereafter, the
Respondents continued demanding colour TV, tape-recorder and
motorcycle and on non-fulfillment of such demand, the harassment
continued. He has further deposed that the Respondents also
demanded money for pipeline. He has further deposed that the
Respondent beat Sangeeta and drove her out of her matrimonial
house and therefore, she came to her parental house. It is his case
that the Respondent Nos.4 to 7 used to instigate the Respondent No.1
to beat Sangeeta and used to advise him to stay separately from
Sangeeta as she was unlucky. He has deposed that on 05/11/1996,
the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 beat Sangeeta and drove her out of her
matrimonial house. Thereafter, he went with Sangeeta to police
station to lodge her FIR.
9. He has admitted that he did not remember the date when
2.½ tolas of gold were given to the Respondents.
URS 9 of 15::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
10 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc10. PW 4 ASI Subhash Tarate had investigated the C.R.No.98
of 1996 of Koregaon Police Station. He has deposed that he had
recorded statements of the family members and relatives of PW 1
Sangeeta. According to him, PW 1 had given him letters which are
produced at Exh.43, 44 and 45. After completion of investigation, he
had filed the charge-sheet.
11. I have heard Ms. S. S. Kaushik, learned APP for the State -
Appellant. Nobody appeared on behalf of the Respondents. With her
assistance, I have gone through the entire evidence and have perused
the record and proceedings. I have also gone through the reasoning
given by the learned trial Judge while acquitting the Respondents.
12. The prosecution case rests only on the evidence of PW 1
Sangeeta Jadhav, PW 2 Vishwanath Bhilare and PW 3 Sanjay Bhilare.
Except the first informant, her father and brother, no other
independent witness is examined by the prosecution. From the
perusal of their evidence, it appears that following are the
circumstances alleged against the Respondents in an attempt to prove
their guilt for the offences charged against them.
URS 10 of 15::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
11 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc(i) harassment of Sangeeta because the Respondent Nos.1
and 5 were not treated properly by PW 2 at Mumbai,
(ii) harassment on the ground of demand of money for laying
pipeline,
(iii) harassment on the demand of 2.½ tolas of gold,
(iv) harassment for non-fulfillment of demand of colour TV,
tape-recorder and motorcycle,
(v) harassment on the ground that she was considered
unlucky,
(vi) Sangeeeta being forced to go to her parental house by
dropping her at Arabwadi,
(vii) driving her out of her matrimonial house after beating her.
13. Apart from the oral evidence, the prosecution has
produced on record letters at Exh.43, 44 and 45. These letters are
brought on record through the evidence of PW 1. According to the
prosecution case, these are the letters written by Sangeeta herself to
her uncle, father and brother. Obviously, once these letters are
posted, they were in custody of these 3 persons. No evidence is
brought on record to show that these 3 persons had produced these
URS 11 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
12 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.docletters before the police. Obviously, Sangeeta could not have had any
control or any connection with these letters after she had posted them.
Importantly, neither PW 2 nor PW 3 make any reference to such
letters. Therefore, in this background, I am not inclined to take these
letters into consideration in support of the case of the prosecution.
14. Insofar as the harassment due to not giving proper
treatment to Respondent Nos.1 and 5 at Mumbai by PW 2 is
concerned, it appears to be a trivial incident and PW 1 has not been
able to tell around what time she was harassed and beaten on that
count. The evidence of PW 2 and PW 3 will not take the prosecution
case further. Only PW 1 could have been aware of any such
harassment if it was there at all. Since PW 1's evidence in that behalf
is not very specific and cogent, this circumstance is not proved by the
prosecution.
15. Insofar as the allegations of demand of money for laying
pipeline is concerned, the evidence shows that the pipeline was laid by
the Respondent No.1 in the year 1993 itself. According to the PW 1,
her marriage was solemnized on 29/03/1992 and for a year she was
URS 12 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
13 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doctreated properly. Thereafter, the incident of Respondent No.1 and 5's
visit to Mumbai had taken place. Till then, there were no allegations
of the demand of money for laying down a pipeline in the
Respondents' field. Therefore, even this circumstance is not proved
properly by the prosecution.
16. The prosecution has further alleged that the Respondents
demanded 2 tolas of gold of money. In this regard, the evidence of
PW 3 Sanjay shows that when he had gone to the house of the
Respondents, at that time, he had given 2.½ tolas of gold to the
Respondent. It is not his case that he had given that gold on demand
made by the Respondents.
17. Insofar as the demand of colour TV, tape-recorder and
motorcycle is concerned, the PW 2 has not deposed in his deposition
that there was such demand by the Respondents. PW 2 would have
been the best witness if he was expected to fulfill such demand. PW 2
has not mentioned any such demand made by the Respondents.
URS 13 of 15::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
14 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc18. Regarding the incident of dropping Sangeeta at Arabwadi
against her wishes, PW 1 Sangeeta could not mention even
approximately the period when such incident had taken place. At
least in this case, it was possible for the prosecution to examine an
independent person from Arabwadi who could have witnessed such
incident. Such evidence is not forthcoming and therefore, even this
circumstance is not established by the prosecution.
19. About the allegations of branding her as unlucky, these
are vague allegations and there are not specifically directed in respect
of a particular incident. PW 1 herself has not deposed that she was
harassed on that ground.
20. Insofar as the allegation that Sangeeta was driven out of
her matrimonial house is concerned, the evidence shows that the PW
2 had taken ill and Sangeeta had visited him in the hospital and since
then, she had not returned to her matrimonial house. Therefore, it
cannot be said that she came to her parental house as the accused
beat her and drove her out of her matrimonial house. Therefore, even
this circumstance is not properly proved by the prosecution.
URS 14 of 15::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
15 APEAL 62-03 Judgment.doc21. Thus taking into consideration all the allegations and the
evidence led by the prosecution, it appears that the prosecution could
not prove its case against any of the Respondents. The learned trial
Judge has given cogent reasoning in acquitting all the Respondents. I
find no perversity in the approach of the learned trial Judge. The
view taken by the learned trial Judge is a possible view and therefore,
I do not find it necessary to interfere with the decision.
22. As a result, the Appeal fails and is dismissed accordingly.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
URS 15 of 15
::: Uploaded on - 01/10/2018 02/10/2018 00:19:05 :::
