The defence of the respondent is that his marriage with his
first wife was subsisting and consequently Vidya cannot be said to be a
“wife” within the meaning of Section 498A. The trial court has accepted
the evidence led by the respondent-accused and come to the conclusion that
since the first marriage of the respondent was subsisting, respondent cannot
be said to be husband of PW 1 – Vidya nor can Vidya be said to be the wife
of the respondent-accused. The trial court ultimately came to the
conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC had
been proved.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APEPAL NO. 1392 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra
Vs.
Vikas Ganpatrao Sonar
CORAM: P. V. HARDAS &
P. N. DESHMUKH, JJ.
NOVEMBER 27, 2013.
ORAL JUDGMENT [ Per P. V. Hardas, J.] :
Citation; 2014 ALLMR(CRI) 1029
This is an appeal filed by the appellant – State questioning the
correctness of the judgment of 15 th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune,
dated 31/7/2004 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2003 acquitting the respondent-
accused for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC.
Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal
2.
may briefly be stated thus:-
PW 6 – PI Rajendra Shelke, who was attached to the
Dattawadi Police Out-post on 24/10/2002, was informed by one police
constable about the receipt of information from the Harjeevan Hospital
about admission of one lady with burns. Accordingly, PW 6 – PI Shelke
directed Constable Salunke to record the statement of the victim and also to
get her statement recorded by a Magistrate. Accordingly, a requisition was
issued to the Special Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement of
injured – Vidya. The said communication is at Exh. 48. Thereafter, PW 6 –
PI Shelke visited the Harjeevan Hosptial and contacted the doctor in order
to verify if injured was in a fit condition to give her statement. The
Medical Officer examined the injured and opined that she was in a fit state
of mind to give her statement. Accordingly, the statement of Vidya was
recorded in the presence of the Medical Officer at Exh. 15. The aforesaid
statement was read over to Vidya and Vidya admitted the contents to have
been correctly recorded. On the basis of the statement of Vidya at Exh. 15,
an offence vide Crime No. 245 of 2002 was registered under Sections 498A
and 307 of the IPC against the respondent-accused. PW 6 – PI Shelke
thereafter proceeded to the scene of the incident and in the presence of the
panch witnesses drew the scene of the incident panchanama at Exh. 46.
From the scene of the incident, one saree, one tea cup and one match-box
came to be seized. The aforesaid articles seized from the scene of the
incident are Articles 1 to 3. On 25/10/2002 the respondent-accused was
arrested under arrest panchanama at Exh. 49. Thereafter statements of the
witnesses were recorded and further to the completion of the investigation,
a charge-sheet against the respondent was submitted.
On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, trial court vide
Exh. 3 framed charge against the respondent for offence punishable under
Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC. The respondent denied his guilt and
claimed to be tried.
Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 7
witnesses. The defence of the respondent-accused was of denial. The trial
court, upon appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the respondent for the
aforesaid offences. The appellant – State being aggrieved by the acquittal,
has filed the present appeal.
3.
Prosecution has examined PW 1 – Vidya, who deposes that
she had been married earlier and after obtaining a divorce by mutual
consent from her first husband, she had married the respondent. According
to PW 1 – Vidya, the respondent was also married earlier. PW 1 – Vidya
has not stated that the respondent had obtained divorce from his previous
wife. According to PW 1 – Vidya, she began to reside with the respondent,
but the respondent used to ill-treat her and used to demand that Vidya
should bring money from her parents. According to Vidya, on the day of
the incident, the respondent had returned home and thereafter had poured
According to PW 1 – Vidya, the
kerosene and had set her ablaze.
respondent thereafter fled from the scene of the incident. Vidya, thereafter,
went to the Harjeevan Hospital, where she was admitted and her statement
was recorded.
In cross-examination, PW 1 – Vidya has admitted as true that
while going towards the Harjeevan Hospital, Dattawadi Police Out-post is
on way. Admittedly, Vidya had not gone to the police station for lodging a
report. Omission has also been duly proved that Vidya had not stated in
her previous statement that on the day of the incident, the accused had
returned home from work at about 1 p.m. and had assaulted her. It was
also not stated by her in her previous statement that the accused thereafter
had left for work and had returned again at 2 p.m. An omission has also
been duly proved that Vidya had not stated that at about 2.30 p.m., while
she was doing her routine work in the house, the respondent had poured
kerosene on her and had thrown a burning matchstick and Viday realized
about this when her clothes caught fire. An omission has also been duly
proved that Vidya had not stated that the accused had left the house after
closing the door. An omission has also been elicited in respect of Vidya not
stating in her report about informing her parents.
Vidya has further
admitted that till she had reached the hospital, she had not lodged any
report. She has further admitted that when she was taken on the ground
floor of the house for going to the hospital, the police had arrived and she
claims to have narrated the incident to the police. However, the aforesaid
fact is not supported by the police. Thus it is clear that despite several
chances being available to PW 1 – Vidya, Vidya had not narrated the
incident to the police, particularly about the respondent setting her ablaze.
In further cross-examination of PW 1 – Vidya, it has been elicited that
Vidya does not know if the respondent had obtained divorce from his
earlier wife.
4.
The defence of the respondent is that his marriage with his
first wife was subsisting and consequently Vidya cannot be said to be a
“wife” within the meaning of Section 498A. The trial court has accepted
the evidence led by the respondent-accused and come to the conclusion that
since the first marriage of the respondent was subsisting, respondent cannot
be said to be husband of PW 1 – Vidya nor can Vidya be said to be the wife
of the respondent-accused. The trial court ultimately came to the
conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC had
been proved.
5.
In respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the
IPC, the trial court came to the conclusion that the report lodged by Vidya
was a belated report as Vidya had several opportunities of disclosing the
incident to the police. The false implication of the respondent – accused
could not be ruled out. The trial court, therefore, gave the benefit of doubt
to the respondent-accused and acquitted him.
6.
With the assistance of the learned APP, we have perused the
findings recorded by the trial court. The view taken by the trial court is a
possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. No perversity
has been pointed out to us in the reasoning of the trial court. Merely
because another view of the evidence is possible is not a ground to interfere
with the order of acquittal. In any event, according to us, the view taken by
the trial court is the only view that is possible in the face of the evidence on
record. We, thus, do not notice any merit in the present appeal and the
present appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
Before parting with this appeal, we find that Criminal
7.
Application No. 1574 of 2013 has been filed by the respondent as well as
PW 1 – Vidya. It appears that the dispute between the respondent-accused
and PW 1 – Vidya has been amicably settled and certain settlement terms
have been arrived at in the Family Court. Accordingly, affidavits of the
parties have been tendered in this court in the present appeal evidencing the
settlement arrived at between the parties.
We, therefore, take those
affidavits on record.
8.
As observed by us, since there is no merit in the present
appeal, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the respondent.
(P. N. DESHMUKH,J.)
(P. V. HARDAS,J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment