1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 137 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.I. City Chowk Appellant/orig. Police Station,Aurangabad. Respondent versus 01. Masoodullakhan s/o Mahemoodulla Khan, age 30 years, occupation service r/of Asephia Colony, Aurangabad. 02. Mehmoodullakha s/o M. Zahirkhan aged 59 years, occup. service, retired Government Servant, Respondents/ori. r/of as above. accused Nos. 1 & 2. WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 138 of 2000 The State of Maharashtra, through P.S.I. City Chowk Appellant/orig. Police Station,Aurangabad. Respondent versus Hasina Begum w/o Mahemuddula Khan, aged 48 years, occupa. household r/of Asifiya Colony, Respondent/ori. Aurangabad. accused No.3. ------- Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the appellant-State in both the appeals. Smt.V.S.Ghanekar, Advocate, holding for Shri N.S.Ghanekar, Advocate for Respondents. 2 Coram : P.R.Borkar,J. Date : 11/02/2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 01. These are the two appeals filed by the State, being aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 22.12.1995 passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 91 and 94 of 1995, thereby acquitting original accused persons who are Respondents in present two appeals of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, who were earlier convicted by the learned 12th Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Aurangabad in R.C.C. No. 82 of 1992 of offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC vide judgment and order dated 22.11.1995. 02. The Respondents in Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 2000 before this court were original accused Nos. 1 and 2; and the sole Respondent in Criminal Appeal No. 138 of 2000 before this court was original accused No. 3. They were charged of committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 all read with Section 34 of I.P.C. and were tried by the learned 12th 3 Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Aurangabad. They were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506 of IPC, but were convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC. Accused No. 1 Masoodullakhan was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/=, whereas accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Mahemoodulla and Hasina Begum) were sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment till rising of court and to pay fine of Rs.500/= each. Being aggrieved by the said order of conviction and sentence, original accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed Criminal Appeal No.91 of 1995 and original accused No. 3 filed criminal appeal No.94 of 1995 in the Sessions Court, Aurangabad and those two appeals came to be allowed by common judgment dated 22.12.1995, thereby acquitting all the three original accused persons of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC and sentence awarded to them was set aside. It is this order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge which is challenged in the present appeals. 03. Briefly stated, it is the case of the prosecution, as disclosed in the complaint lodged by complainant Jahurnisa (the wife of accused No.1 and 4 daughter in law of accused Nos. 2 and 3) on 25.8.1995 (Exh.19), that the complainant was serving as a teacher in municipal school. She married accused No.1 on 30.5.1990. Accused No.1 was working as a technician in the Bajaj Auto Company. The father-in- law of the complainant was working as a teacher. After marriage for six months, the complainant was treated well, but thereafter there were demands by accused persons for colour T.V. and scooter and for non fulfillment of the demands, accused No.1 used to beat her. She was not given food. However, the complainant was hopeful that after birth of children, she would be treated well. Even the salary of the complainant used to be taken away by accused persons. Brothers and other relatives of the complainant tried to intervene, but without any result. Thereafter, a daughter was born to complainant and at the time of delivery and thereafter for about six months the complainant was residing with her brothers. Even during that period, the accused-respondents used to visit and take away salary of the complainant under threat of taking away the daughter. It is further stated that on 21.8.1992 at about 7.30 p.m., accused No.1 had come to the house of brother of the complainant and beat her. Her brothers intervened. 5 The complainant was beaten for refusing to give her salary to accused No.1 and 2. It is stated that at that time, Respondents-accused Nos. 1 and 2 gave threats and went away. It is further stated in the complaint that on 24.8.1992 at about 8.30 p.m. the Respondents again came and said that the complainant did not do well by lodging a complaint with police and that they would take revenge by coming to her school and insulting and abusing her there. 04. The above-said complaint was registered. Investigation was carried out and ultimately charge- sheet was filed in the court. The prosecution examined mainly three witnesses on the incident, namely, complainant Jahurnisa herself, her brother and her brother in law. No independent witness is examined. On the other hand, defence examined five witnesses to prove that in April 1994, divorce was given by original accused No.1 to Jahurnisa and as such, there was no occasion for accused No.1 to go to the house of brothers of the complainant and demand her salary. The defence also proved that original accused No.1 has filed complaint against present complainant Jahurnisa and her brothers. 6 05. Heard learned A.P.P. Shri B.V. Wagh for appellant-State and Smt. V.S.Ghanekar learned Advocate for the Respondents. Both have taken me through the judgments and record of both courts. 06. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has observed that though it is mentioned in the complaint that the complainant was called "Manhoos" (woman of evil character), it was not sufficient to hold that it amounted to cruelty of the nature contemplated by section 498-A of I.P.C. So far as demand of colour T.V. and scooter is concerned, it is observed that financial condition of Respondents- accused was also good. They had black and White T.V., so also a moped. Father-in-law, so also husband of the complainant were serving. Marriage was performed on 30.5.1990. Relations were normal till November 1990 and in March 1991 the complainant had gone to her parents' house for delivery and as such after November 1990 till March 1991, she was with accused for four months. It is also observed that it is proved by defence by leading evidence that in the month of April 1992, accused No.1 had given talaq to the complainant. He had also lodged complaint against brother of the complainant on 3.8.1992, whereas the 7 complainant lodged reports on 21.8.1992 and 25.8.1992. It is also observed that the complaint dated 21.8.1992 was withheld from the court and the same must have been either for non-cognizable offence or must not be containing the allegations regarding cruelty. It is admitted by complainant that complaint dated 25.8.1992 was written in her own hand at the house of her brother and was then submitted to police station. It was, therefore, argued that there might be deliberations before filing complaint. Besides omission to produce complaint filed on 21.8.1992, it is observed that once there was divorce in April 1992, it is difficult to believe that the accused persons would visit the complainant at her brothers' house and recover monthly salary for the months of May, June and July 1992. The Sessions Court, therefore, held that very theory of accused persons approaching house of brother of complainant in August, 1992 and demanding salary to the complainant, itself is not believable. It is improbable in view of positive case proved by accused that there was talaq given in April 1992. Ordinarily, after talaq, accused No.1-husband is not likely to go to house of brother of the complainant. The theory that the accused were 8 demanding complainant's salary is thus unbelievable. In the circumstances, benefit of doubt was given to the accused persons. 08. After giving anxious consideration to arguments advanced by learned A.P.P. Shri Wagh, in my opinion, the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge is reasonable and proper and cannot be said to be perverse. 09. The law is settled that in appeal against acquittal, if the view taken by the trial court is found reasonable and proper, then the appellate court should not interfere in such finding or view. 10. In this view of the matter, these appeals deserve to be and are accordingly, dismissed. pnd/criapl137.00 (P.R.BORKAR, J.)