Allowed

Mangalsingh Amarsingh Bais v. the State of Mah.

Bombay HC27 Mar 2015REVN/328/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, allowed a Criminal Revision Application and acquitted an appellant who had been previously convicted of cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The court found the prosecution evidence insufficient as the complaints were not substantiated.

What did the court decide?

The impugned judgment acquitting the appellant is quashed; the accused is acquitted; fine to be refunded; bail bond cancelled.

Mangalsingh Amarsingh Bais Vs the State of Mah. — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

(1) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 328 of 2002

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Criminal Revision Application No. 328 of 2002

¶4

Mangalsingh s/o. Amarsingh Bais, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Service as Teacher, Z.P. School, Tamsa, Taluka : Hadgaon, District : Nanded. .. Revision Applicant.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station, Hadgaon, District : Nanded.

¶7

.. Respondent.

¶8

Mr. S.V. Warad, Advocate, for the revision applicant.

¶9

Mr. U.S. Mote, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the respondent - State.

¶10

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.

¶11

DATE : 27TH MARCH 2015

¶12

ORAL JUDGMENT :

¶13

Heard Adv. Mr. S.V. Warad for the revision applicant, and the learned APP Mr. U.S. Mote for the respondent - State.

¶14

(2) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 328 of 2002

¶15

The applicant herein is convicted by the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Hadgaon [District : Nanded], in Regular Criminal Case No. 26/1994 vide judgment and order dated 24-9-1997. The applicant herein along with co-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for one day i.e. till rising of the court and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. The applicant herein was tried for the offence punishable under Section 498A, read with Section 34 of the IPC, along with six other accused persons. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the accused filed Criminal Appeal No. 47/1997 before the Sessions Court at Nanded. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, vide judgment and order dated 26th August 2002, was pleased to allow the appeal partly. The conviction and sentence passed against original accused nos.3 to 7 was set aside. They were acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. However, the conviction of the present applicant was maintained. Hence, this revision.

¶16

Such of facts necessary for the decision of this revision are as follows :

¶17

On 3rd January 1994, the wife of the present applicant lodged a report at Sonkhed Police Station, alleging therein that she was married to the present applicant on 24th May 1987. That, her father had given dowry of Rs. 11,000/- and other valuables at the time of marriage. The applicant was working as a Teacher prior to the marriage. The couple was blessed

¶18

(3) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 328 of 2002

¶19

with one daughter, namely, Madhuri. After giving birth to the daughter, it is alleged, that the wife of the present applicant was subjected to cruelty and illtreatment at the hands of the members of her matrimonial family. In the report, she has given various instances of harassment and illtreatment. According to the complainant, there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- by her father-in-law, her husband and others, and she was being harassed on the said count. On the basis of the said report, Crime No. 1/1994 was registered against all the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323, read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed on 27th February 1994. The case was registered as Regular Criminal Case No. 26/1994. The prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused.

¶20

Perused the substantive evidence of the complainant. She has deposed in consonance with the First Information Report which is marked as Exhibit 43. In the cross examination, she has specifically admitted that prior to marriage, she was fully aware that the applicant hails from a joint family. She has admitted that all the family members were residing together. That, there were about 15 members in the family. The present applicant was in service prior to marriage. In the year 1987, he was serving at Sayaphal [Taluka : Kinwat]. She has also admitted that she was not illtreated till she gave birth to Madhuri. The primary allegation of demand of Rs. 50,000/- has been attributed to the father-in-law. The complainant has not deposed before the court, the particulars of illtreatment meted out to her. She has specifically admitted that she never resided with her husband at the place of his service. The applicant was

¶21

(4) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 328 of 2002

¶22

serving at Sayaphal till 1990 and thereafter he had joined as Zilla Parishad Teacher at village Tamsa. She has denied the suggestion, that she was insisting upon her husband to live separately from other members of the joint family. Omnibus allegations are made against the accused, that they used to illtreat her. The allegations are levelled against all members of the matrimonial house and they all stand acquitted. In the examination in chief, the complainant has only given one stray incident without mentioning the day and date or occasion and has stated that one day, the applicant herein had beaten her with Chappal and also with stool on the lower side of her buttock. There is no specific allegation of illtreatment against the applicant and that would be precisely the reason why the applicant was awarded a meagre sentence of rising till the court and fine.

¶23

The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that ever since the initiation of the criminal proceedings, the applicant and the original complainant had been living separately. The complainant had filed an application seeking maintenance and the same is being regularly paid to her till today. The daughter of the complainant has attained majority. She has got married. The entire expenditure of the said marriage was incurred by the applicant and hence, according to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the applicant deserves to be acquitted for want of evidence.

¶24

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the complainant has stated in the examination in chief, that one day she was assaulted by the applicant and that the same has not been shattered in the cross examination and, therefore, the offence stands proved. The court cannot be oblivious of the fact, that what is stated in the deposition is only

¶25

Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 328 of 2002

¶26

about a stray incident. The complainant had hardly resided with her husband, except on the holidays, weekends or festivals. That, there is evidence to show that she had voluntarily withdrawn herself from the society of her husband. However, she has been protected by grant of maintenance. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the accused / applicant guilty of the charge punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The complainant has not demonstrated any wilful conduct on the part of the applicant and, therefore, the applicant deserves to be acquitted. These observations shall not be considered for the continuance of payment of maintenance to the wife as the applicant has undertaken not to neglect her during her lifetime.

¶27

For the reasons mentioned herein above, the applicant deserves to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶28

8. In the result, the Revision Application is allowed.

¶29

(A) The judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, dated 26th August 2002, in Criminal Appeal No. 47/1997, to the extent of the present revision applicant (original accused no.2), is quashed and set aside. The revision applicant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶30

(B) Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the revision applicant. Bail bonds of the applicant stand cancelled.

¶31

(6) Cri. Revn. Appln. No. 328 of 2002

¶32

Rule is made absolute in the above terms.

¶33

( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV )

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

puranik / CRIREVN328.02

Mangalsingh Amarsingh Bais v. the State of Mah.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangalsingh Amarsingh Bais v. the State of Mah.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Karbhari Labade Vs Bebitai Uttam Labade

Sk Aki Akbar Mogal and Others Vs Eajaj Khan Shafi Pathan and Anr.

Agasti Sarv Seva Sangh Agasti Nagar-Akole. Vs Zabbu Bhima Pawar

Balaji Deoram Mule Vs State of Maha

Gulam Mohammad S/O Gulam Ahmed Vs State of Maha and Ors.

Dhanraj S/O Shankar Giri Vs Chandrakala W/O Dhanraj Giri and Others