It can be seen from record that the
evidence shows that the complainant PW1
Naseembegum, after marriage resided at the place
of accused persons for about two months and
thereafter, it is claimed that there was demand
and illtreatment and she was reached to her
parents place. At the same time there is evidence
that she resided at the place of accused for just
about two months. The complaint Exhibit 50 claims
that she was given trouble but does not mention
that the complainant was beaten or she was starved
as is her oral evidence. The evidence is that the
accused demanded the money for securing job to her
husband and so saying, trouble was given to the
complainant. PW4 and PW5 referred to demand and
cruel treatment. PW5 Hamid Baig claims in
evidence that victim told him that she was being
illtreated but in his letter claims that victim
was being beaten. The Appellate Court examined the
evidence and found that evidence regarding alleged
cruel treatment was quite vague. The complainant
even admitted in cross examination that she filed
the complaint as the accused persons had not come
to take her. The Appellate Court came to the
conclusion on the basis of evidence, that even if
it was to be said that some demand was there, that
by itself could not be concluded as cruelty. For
such reasons, the Appellate Court interfered with
the Judgment of conviction of present Respondents
and acquitted the Respondents.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.454 OF 2001
The State of Maharashtra,
VERSUS
Sk. Mohsin s/o Sk. Rashid,
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1865
1. This Appeal is filed by the State against
acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were
arrayed in the trial Court as original accused
Nos.1 and 4. These accused were convicted in
Regular Criminal Case No.337 of 1997 by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Purna vide Judgment dated
8th January 1999. Along with these Respondentsaccused,
their other family members were also
prosecuted but they were acquitted by the trial
Court. The Respondents accused Nos.1 and 4 had
filed Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1999 before the
Sessions Judge, Parbhani and they came to be
acquitted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Parbhani vide Judgment dated 17th August, 2001.
2. In short, the case of the prosecution as
was brought, appears to be as follows:
(A) The complainant Naseembegum wife of Respondent
No.1 accused filed first information report on
20th April 1996 at Purna Police Station, DistParbhani
claiming that she was married to
Respondent No.1 Sk. Mohsin on 17th May 1995 and
she went to reside at the matrimonial house at
Parbhani. According to complainant, accused
persons treated her well for initial two months
and thereafter, she claims that the accused
persons started asking her to bring Rs.10,000/
from her father to secure job for her husband and
so saying, they started illtreating her. After
two months of the marriage, Respondent No.2 the
motherinlaw told her that if she does not get
the money she should go to her parents place. So
saying, she was reached to the place of her
parents. After eight days the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 came to Purna and told the father of the
complainant that for securing service, Rs.10,000/
were required and also a watch was required and if
the same is given then only they would take the
complainant for cohabitation. Father of
complainant namely Syed Hasan was unable to give
the amount and there was a quarrel and the accused
went away. The complainant was pregnant and she
delivered a baby child in February 1996. Her grand
father Syed Bashir (PW2) had gone to the place of
the accused but the accused did not come to meet
complainant. As the accused did not come to take
the complainant and she was illtreated and left
at the place of her parents, the complainant
filed the complaint.
(B) A.S.I. Kadiroddin registered the offence at
Crime No.43 of 1996 under Section 498A read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in
brief) and offence was investigated by Head
Constable Mohammad Khalil (PW6). He recorded
statements of the complainant and her parents. He
arrested the accused. After investigating the
matter, the chargesheet came to be filed.
(C) Charge was framed against the five accused as
were arrayed in the trial Court, under Section
498A as well as Section 506 read with 34 of the
I.P.C. Prosecution brought on record evidence of
six witnesses. The defence of the accused persons
as appearing from the crossexamination and
statements under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was that of denial. The
trial Court after considering the material
available, acquitted all the accused persons of
the offence punishable under Section 506 of the
I.P.C. However, original accused Nos. 1 and 4
(present Respondents) came to be convicted of the
offence punishable under Section 498A read with
34 of I.P.C. The other accused were acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 498A of
I.P.C. also.
(D) The Appellate Court considered the arguments
raised before it and for reasons recorded in the
Judgment, acquitted the present Respondents also
of the offence punishable under Section 498A read
with 34 of I.P.C.
3. I have heard learned A.P.P. for State.
The learned A.P.P. has taken me through the oral
evidence of all the witnesses. He has submitted
that the Appellate Court wrongly gave stress on
delay in filing of the complaint and that only
relatives were examined and there was no
independent witness. According to him, in matter
like the present one, the evidence could be only
of the relatives. He submitted that the Appellate
Court erred in acquitting the Respondents on the
basis that only making of demand was not cruelty.
4. Against this, learned counsel for
Respondentsaccused supported the Judgment of the
Appellate Court and the reasonings recorded by it.
Learned counsel for Respondents relied on the case
of Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah and others
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2014) 12
S.C.C. Page No.261. Referring to Para 7 of the
Judgment, the learned counsel submitted that in a
matter of appeal against acquittal, the
presumption of innocence gets strengthened in
favour of the accused when the acquittal is
recorded by the lower Court and thus merely
because another view is possible, the same should
not be the reason to interfere with the Judgment.
Learned counsel relied on the reasonings recorded
by the Appellate Court to submit that the Appeal
of the State should be rejected.
5. A quick reference can be made to the oral
evidence which was brought on record by the
prosecution. Complainant PW1 Naseembegum deposed
that accused persons treated her well for initial
two months after marriage and then they started
demanding Rs.10,000/ and a watch. She claims that
the accused used to beat her and put her to
starvation. She claims that present Respondents
accused Nos.1 and 4 left her at the place of her
parents. According to her even after 815 days
when they came at the place of her parents, they
made the same demand. Evidence of PW2 Syed
Bashir, grandfather of the complainant, in short,
is that the victim was treated well for two months
and when he went to see her, she informed him that
accused had made demand of Rs.10,000/. He claims
that after two months of marriage, the
Respondentsaccused had left the victim at his
place and the victim had delivered a baby child.
Evidence of PW3 Syed Hasan, in short, is that his
daughter was treated well for initial two months
and then demand of Rs.10,000/ and watch was made.
According to him, his daughter informed him about
the said demand. He also claims that Hamid Baig
(PW5) had sent a letter. He proved the document
at Exhibit 63. PW4 Syed Rashid claims that he was
residing at Parbhani and complainant had come to
him 23 times and she narrated about the incident
of the accused persons demanding money. PW5 Hamid
Baig, cousin brother of victim, stated that PW4
Syed Rashid had informed him about cruelty to the
complainant and he had gone to her house. He
claims that complainant told him that she has been
illtreated and he sent letter Exhibit 63 to the
father of the complainant.
6. Investigating Officer Mohammad Khalil
stated that the neighbours of the accused are
Parda Nashin and so he could not record statements
of the neighbours.
7. The trial Court referred to the evidence
of these witnesses and in Para 31 of its Judgment
distinguished the case for Respondents accused
Nos.1 and 4 visavis the other accused and while
convicting the present Respondents, he acquitted
the other accused.
8. It can be seen from record that the
evidence shows that the complainant PW1
Naseembegum, after marriage resided at the place
of accused persons for about two months and
thereafter, it is claimed that there was demand
and illtreatment and she was reached to her
parents place. At the same time there is evidence
that she resided at the place of accused for just
about two months. The complaint Exhibit 50 claims
that she was given trouble but does not mention
that the complainant was beaten or she was starved
as is her oral evidence. The evidence is that the
accused demanded the money for securing job to her
husband and so saying, trouble was given to the
complainant. PW4 and PW5 referred to demand and
cruel treatment. PW5 Hamid Baig claims in
evidence that victim told him that she was being
illtreated but in his letter claims that victim
was being beaten. The Appellate Court examined the
evidence and found that evidence regarding alleged
cruel treatment was quite vague. The complainant
even admitted in crossexamination that she filed
the complaint as the accused persons had not come
to take her. The Appellate Court came to the
conclusion on the basis of evidence, that even if
it was to be said that some demand was there, that
by itself could not be concluded as cruelty. For
such reasons, the Appellate Court interfered with
the Judgment of conviction of present Respondents
and acquitted the Respondents.
9. Going through the evidence available and
reasons discussed above, the view taken by the
Appellate Court is a possible view of the evidence
and it appears that the Appellate Court was
justified in interfering with the Judgment of the
trial Court. PW2 Syed Bashir and PW3 Syed Hasan
in their examinationinchiefs did not depose that
victim claimed to have been beaten or starved. On
the same evidence as far as regards cruelty is
concerned, the other accused have been acquitted.
Merely on the basis of who had gone along with
complainant to her parents place, the trial Court
made distinction, but the Appellate Court
interfered and as the acquittal has been recorded,
it would not be appropriate to interfere in this
Appeal.
10. I do not find any reason to allow the
Appeal against acquittal. The Criminal Appeal is
dismissed.
[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.]
evidence shows that the complainant PW1
Naseembegum, after marriage resided at the place
of accused persons for about two months and
thereafter, it is claimed that there was demand
and illtreatment and she was reached to her
parents place. At the same time there is evidence
that she resided at the place of accused for just
about two months. The complaint Exhibit 50 claims
that she was given trouble but does not mention
that the complainant was beaten or she was starved
as is her oral evidence. The evidence is that the
accused demanded the money for securing job to her
husband and so saying, trouble was given to the
complainant. PW4 and PW5 referred to demand and
cruel treatment. PW5 Hamid Baig claims in
evidence that victim told him that she was being
illtreated but in his letter claims that victim
was being beaten. The Appellate Court examined the
evidence and found that evidence regarding alleged
cruel treatment was quite vague. The complainant
even admitted in cross examination that she filed
the complaint as the accused persons had not come
to take her. The Appellate Court came to the
conclusion on the basis of evidence, that even if
it was to be said that some demand was there, that
by itself could not be concluded as cruelty. For
such reasons, the Appellate Court interfered with
the Judgment of conviction of present Respondents
and acquitted the Respondents.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.454 OF 2001
The State of Maharashtra,
VERSUS
Sk. Mohsin s/o Sk. Rashid,
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATE : 5TH FEBRUARY, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR(CRI)1865
1. This Appeal is filed by the State against
acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were
arrayed in the trial Court as original accused
Nos.1 and 4. These accused were convicted in
Regular Criminal Case No.337 of 1997 by Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Purna vide Judgment dated
8th January 1999. Along with these Respondentsaccused,
their other family members were also
prosecuted but they were acquitted by the trial
Court. The Respondents accused Nos.1 and 4 had
filed Criminal Appeal No.5 of 1999 before the
Sessions Judge, Parbhani and they came to be
acquitted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge,
Parbhani vide Judgment dated 17th August, 2001.
2. In short, the case of the prosecution as
was brought, appears to be as follows:
(A) The complainant Naseembegum wife of Respondent
No.1 accused filed first information report on
20th April 1996 at Purna Police Station, DistParbhani
claiming that she was married to
Respondent No.1 Sk. Mohsin on 17th May 1995 and
she went to reside at the matrimonial house at
Parbhani. According to complainant, accused
persons treated her well for initial two months
and thereafter, she claims that the accused
persons started asking her to bring Rs.10,000/
from her father to secure job for her husband and
so saying, they started illtreating her. After
two months of the marriage, Respondent No.2 the
motherinlaw told her that if she does not get
the money she should go to her parents place. So
saying, she was reached to the place of her
parents. After eight days the Respondent Nos.1
and 2 came to Purna and told the father of the
complainant that for securing service, Rs.10,000/
were required and also a watch was required and if
the same is given then only they would take the
complainant for cohabitation. Father of
complainant namely Syed Hasan was unable to give
the amount and there was a quarrel and the accused
went away. The complainant was pregnant and she
delivered a baby child in February 1996. Her grand
father Syed Bashir (PW2) had gone to the place of
the accused but the accused did not come to meet
complainant. As the accused did not come to take
the complainant and she was illtreated and left
at the place of her parents, the complainant
filed the complaint.
(B) A.S.I. Kadiroddin registered the offence at
Crime No.43 of 1996 under Section 498A read with
34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ("I.P.C." in
brief) and offence was investigated by Head
Constable Mohammad Khalil (PW6). He recorded
statements of the complainant and her parents. He
arrested the accused. After investigating the
matter, the chargesheet came to be filed.
(C) Charge was framed against the five accused as
were arrayed in the trial Court, under Section
498A as well as Section 506 read with 34 of the
I.P.C. Prosecution brought on record evidence of
six witnesses. The defence of the accused persons
as appearing from the crossexamination and
statements under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 was that of denial. The
trial Court after considering the material
available, acquitted all the accused persons of
the offence punishable under Section 506 of the
I.P.C. However, original accused Nos. 1 and 4
(present Respondents) came to be convicted of the
offence punishable under Section 498A read with
34 of I.P.C. The other accused were acquitted of
the offence punishable under Section 498A of
I.P.C. also.
(D) The Appellate Court considered the arguments
raised before it and for reasons recorded in the
Judgment, acquitted the present Respondents also
of the offence punishable under Section 498A read
with 34 of I.P.C.
3. I have heard learned A.P.P. for State.
The learned A.P.P. has taken me through the oral
evidence of all the witnesses. He has submitted
that the Appellate Court wrongly gave stress on
delay in filing of the complaint and that only
relatives were examined and there was no
independent witness. According to him, in matter
like the present one, the evidence could be only
of the relatives. He submitted that the Appellate
Court erred in acquitting the Respondents on the
basis that only making of demand was not cruelty.
4. Against this, learned counsel for
Respondentsaccused supported the Judgment of the
Appellate Court and the reasonings recorded by it.
Learned counsel for Respondents relied on the case
of Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah and others
vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in (2014) 12
S.C.C. Page No.261. Referring to Para 7 of the
Judgment, the learned counsel submitted that in a
matter of appeal against acquittal, the
presumption of innocence gets strengthened in
favour of the accused when the acquittal is
recorded by the lower Court and thus merely
because another view is possible, the same should
not be the reason to interfere with the Judgment.
Learned counsel relied on the reasonings recorded
by the Appellate Court to submit that the Appeal
of the State should be rejected.
5. A quick reference can be made to the oral
evidence which was brought on record by the
prosecution. Complainant PW1 Naseembegum deposed
that accused persons treated her well for initial
two months after marriage and then they started
demanding Rs.10,000/ and a watch. She claims that
the accused used to beat her and put her to
starvation. She claims that present Respondents
accused Nos.1 and 4 left her at the place of her
parents. According to her even after 815 days
when they came at the place of her parents, they
made the same demand. Evidence of PW2 Syed
Bashir, grandfather of the complainant, in short,
is that the victim was treated well for two months
and when he went to see her, she informed him that
accused had made demand of Rs.10,000/. He claims
that after two months of marriage, the
Respondentsaccused had left the victim at his
place and the victim had delivered a baby child.
Evidence of PW3 Syed Hasan, in short, is that his
daughter was treated well for initial two months
and then demand of Rs.10,000/ and watch was made.
According to him, his daughter informed him about
the said demand. He also claims that Hamid Baig
(PW5) had sent a letter. He proved the document
at Exhibit 63. PW4 Syed Rashid claims that he was
residing at Parbhani and complainant had come to
him 23 times and she narrated about the incident
of the accused persons demanding money. PW5 Hamid
Baig, cousin brother of victim, stated that PW4
Syed Rashid had informed him about cruelty to the
complainant and he had gone to her house. He
claims that complainant told him that she has been
illtreated and he sent letter Exhibit 63 to the
father of the complainant.
6. Investigating Officer Mohammad Khalil
stated that the neighbours of the accused are
Parda Nashin and so he could not record statements
of the neighbours.
7. The trial Court referred to the evidence
of these witnesses and in Para 31 of its Judgment
distinguished the case for Respondents accused
Nos.1 and 4 visavis the other accused and while
convicting the present Respondents, he acquitted
the other accused.
8. It can be seen from record that the
evidence shows that the complainant PW1
Naseembegum, after marriage resided at the place
of accused persons for about two months and
thereafter, it is claimed that there was demand
and illtreatment and she was reached to her
parents place. At the same time there is evidence
that she resided at the place of accused for just
about two months. The complaint Exhibit 50 claims
that she was given trouble but does not mention
that the complainant was beaten or she was starved
as is her oral evidence. The evidence is that the
accused demanded the money for securing job to her
husband and so saying, trouble was given to the
complainant. PW4 and PW5 referred to demand and
cruel treatment. PW5 Hamid Baig claims in
evidence that victim told him that she was being
illtreated but in his letter claims that victim
was being beaten. The Appellate Court examined the
evidence and found that evidence regarding alleged
cruel treatment was quite vague. The complainant
even admitted in crossexamination that she filed
the complaint as the accused persons had not come
to take her. The Appellate Court came to the
conclusion on the basis of evidence, that even if
it was to be said that some demand was there, that
by itself could not be concluded as cruelty. For
such reasons, the Appellate Court interfered with
the Judgment of conviction of present Respondents
and acquitted the Respondents.
9. Going through the evidence available and
reasons discussed above, the view taken by the
Appellate Court is a possible view of the evidence
and it appears that the Appellate Court was
justified in interfering with the Judgment of the
trial Court. PW2 Syed Bashir and PW3 Syed Hasan
in their examinationinchiefs did not depose that
victim claimed to have been beaten or starved. On
the same evidence as far as regards cruelty is
concerned, the other accused have been acquitted.
Merely on the basis of who had gone along with
complainant to her parents place, the trial Court
made distinction, but the Appellate Court
interfered and as the acquittal has been recorded,
it would not be appropriate to interfere in this
Appeal.
10. I do not find any reason to allow the
Appeal against acquittal. The Criminal Appeal is
dismissed.
[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment