As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submits that apart
from independent evidence, complainant has not been able to give specific
date and time when the alleged demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made for
opening a school. That she was not harassed on that count. That the
complainant has not even mentioned the date and time of any ill-treatment.
According to learned counsel for the respondent, the quarrel between the
couple was because he could not afford domestic expenses due to non
payment of salary. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
allegations levelled by the complainant are not contemplated in the definition
of section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
V/s.
Abdul Karim Abdul Kadar
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 12, 2015
Citation; 2015 ALLMR(CRI)2523
1) The State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order
passed by 2nd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Solapur, thereby acquitting
the respondent for offence punishable under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal
Code vide Judgment and Order dated 25/11/2002, has filed this appeal.
Learned counsel Mr. Paras Yadav is appointed by this Court to espouse the
cause of the respondent.
2) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as
follows.
3) That the prosecutrix i.e. wife of present respondent had lodged a report
on 17/02/2000 at the police station alleging therein that respondent was
working as teacher. That she got married to the respondent on 15/05/1994.
After marriage, for 4 months, couple resided with the parents of the
complainant. Thereafter, they had taken a house on rent. That her father had
given initial deposit for the rented premises. Principal allegation against
present respondent was that he did not give funds to meet the daily expenses.
Complainant had to bear all the expenses. It is further alleged that there was a
demand of Rs. 15,000/- from two persons from the village Pan Mangalur,
since respondent had taken hand loan from villagers. According to the
complainant, respondent had assaulted her on two occasions. There was a
demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- to open a school and the respondent was expecting
the complainant to fetch the said amount from her parents and on account of
failure, she was being harassed and ill-treated. On the basis of her report,
crime no. 51 of 2000 was registered at Sadar Bazar Police Station, Solapur for
offence punishable under section 498 (A), 323, 504 of Indian Penal Code.
Case was registered as R.C.C. No. 34 of 2000. Prosecution has examined
three witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
4) Upon recording her substantive evidence, learned Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Solapur vide Judgment and Order dated 03/02/2001 was pleased
to convict the accused for offence punishable under section 498 (A) of Indian
Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and
fine of Rs. 3,000/- i.d. to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year. Being
aggrieved by the Judgment and Order passed by Judicial Magistrate First
Class, accused/appellant had filed Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2001 before
Assistant Sessions Judge, at Solapur. Learned Sessions Judge vide Judgment
and Order dated 25/11/2002 has been pleased to allow the appeal and set
aside the Judgment passed by learned Magistrate vide Judgment and Order
dated 03/02/2001. Hence, this appeal.
5) Perused records and proceedings. Complainant i.e. P. W. 1 has deposed
before the Court that her husband i.e. present respondent was working as a
teacher, but he was not receiving the salary. Entire expenses were being borne
by her and her father at times. A vague allegation is made that there was a
demand of Rs. 2,00,000/-. It is pertinent to note that complainant has not
deposed before the Court in respect of nature of harassment and ill-treatment
meted out to her. It prima facie appears that a discordant note had struck
between the spouses since respondent could not bear the expenses due to non
payment of salary.
6) P. W. 2 happens to be father of the complainant. According to him, he
had paid the deposit and rent for the house which was occupied by his
daughter and son-in-law. In fact, it is the case of complainant that soon after
marriage, couple was residing in the house of P.W. 2.
7) Learned Sessions Judge has observed that there is no independent
evidence to corroborate the allegations levelled by the complainant. A woman
is subjected to harassment and ill-treatment within four walls of the house and
it cannot be expected that she would be able to adduce any independent
evidence. Learned APP submits that neighbours would normally not interfere
with the matrimonial affairs of a couple and would not depose against the
couple. As against this, learned counsel for the respondent submits that apart
from independent evidence, complainant has not been able to give specific
date and time when the alleged demand of Rs. 2,00,000/- was made for
opening a school. That she was not harassed on that count. That the
complainant has not even mentioned the date and time of any ill-treatment.
According to learned counsel for the respondent, the quarrel between the
couple was because he could not afford domestic expenses due to non
payment of salary. Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that
allegations levelled by the complainant are not contemplated in the definition
of section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel has demonstrated
that complaint was made before the Jamat and understanding was given to the
couple. That the respondent had also given an undertaking that he would not
ill-treat the complainant. Respondent has been acquitted by the Judicial
Magistrate First Class for offence punishable under section 323 of Indian
Penal Code as there is no medical evidence to corroborate the allegations that
the respondent had caused any physical violence to the complainant.
8) Learned Sessions Judge has assigned justifiable reasons for recording
acquittal in favour of the respondent and acquitting him of offence punishable
under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. No interference is warranted.
Learned counsel appointed for the respondent has extended efficient cooperation
to the Court in deciding the present appeal. He has put in best of
efforts. His professional fees are quantified to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to be
paid to him within 3 months from today.
O R D E R
(i) Appeal, being sans merits, is dismissed.
(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 25/11/2002 passed by 2nd Ad-Hoc
Asstt. Sessions Judge, Solapur in Criminal Appeal No. 10 of 2001 is
hereby upheld.
(iii) Appeal stands disposed of.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment