Bombay HC: How to appreciate evidence in offence Under S 498A of IPC if there was demand of money without harassment for getting that money?

  Informant has thereafter stated that her husband and

parents-in-law were asking her to bring amount of Rs.5,00,000/-

for getting permanency in employment of husband with Nagar

Parishad. She told them that her parents are poor and unable to

give the amount. Then applicant Nos.1 to 3 responded that if she

is unable to bring the amount, then she should not come for

cohabitation and on that count, she was harassed mentally and

physically time and again. Again the acts amounting to “physical

and mental cruelty” are not given. Statement that unless she

brings the amount she should not come for cohabitation without

any action will not amount to mental and physical harassment.

When the alleged demand is made has also not approximately

stated and for how much period the said demand persisted has

not been stated. She then states that she gave information about

the treatment given to her and her father who had in turn given

that information to their relative. All of them had come and tried

to persuade accused persons, but there was no settlement.

According to the informant since that date the accused persons

intensified harassment. Again the details are lacking. Then she

directly states that when she was in her parental house,

applicant No.1 went there and abused her. Thereafter, the other

accused persons i.e. applicant Nos.4 to 7 instigated applicant

Nos.1 to 3 for not to allow cohabitation of the informant with

applicant No.1. Threat was given that if she is unable to bring

the money then she will not be allowed to stay with them and she

would be killed. All these allegations are vague. When that

statement was made has also not been stated. As earlier stated it

is to be noted that she got married on 24.06.2022 and FIR has

been lodged on 24.07.2023. That means the married life of which

narration has been given is of just more than one year. Out of

that three months she was treated properly and when she

returned to the parental home has not been stated. Statements

of the witnesses are on the same line. All the witnesses have also

kept those facts vague as they are. Neither the details about the

alleged cruelty have been given, nor the date on which there was

a meeting and when the informant came to the parental home

has been stated. The statements of the witnesses are copy paste

and it appears that the investigating officer has made maximum

use of the computer, of course which is not for good reasons.

There cannot be statement in the form of copy paste paragraph to paragraph without difference in punctuations and fonts also.

Unnecessarily energy has been wasted in drawing panchanama of the house of applicant No.1 and even photographs have been

taken on the mobile and then certificate under Section 65-B of

Indian Evidence Act has been given. {Para 4}.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3263 OF 2023

Mohammad Muddassar Vs The State of Maharashtra

 CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &

 ROHIT W. JOSHI, JJ.

 PRONOUNCED ON : 10 JANUARY 2025

ORDER (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.) :-

Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:594-DB.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page