1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.278 OF 1998. Sau.Chhaya alias Pushpa Bandu Wagh, Aged 26 years, Occ. Household, R/o Plot No.9, Sect.No.38/415, Apna Bazar Colony, MIDC, Jalgaon. ...Appellant. Versus 1. Bandu Parbat Wagh, Age 30 years, Occ.Agri. and Dairy Milk. 2. Parbatrao Anandrao Age 50 years, Occ.Agri., 3. Sau. Nirmala alias Triveni Parbat, Age 48 years, Occ. Household. 4. Rangrao Anandrao Wagh, Age 42 years, Occ.Agri., 5. Abai Rangrao Wagh, Age 20 years, Occ.Household, 6. Ku.Jyoti Ramrao Wagh, Age 20 years, Occ.Household, Accused Nos.1 to 6 are R/o Mehunbare, Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon. 7. Rajendra Parbat Wagh, Age 29 years, Occ.Service, Gramsevak, R/o Nevi, Tq.Pachora, 2 Dist. Jalgaon. 8. Namdeo Parbat Wagh, Age 26 years, Occ.Service, R/o Civil Hospital, Dhule, (Driver) 9. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. ... Mr.Vijay Patil, advocate for the appellant. Mr.N.E.Deshmukh, advocate holding for Mr.S.B.Talekar, advocate for the Respondent Nos.1 to 8. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the Respondent NO.9. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 31.08.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Jalgaon, in Criminal Case bearing RCC No. 193/1995, whereby the Respondents have been acquitted for offence punishable U/s 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.Code. 2. The appellant is original complainant. She is wife of Respondent No.1 Bandu. Their marriage was performed on 25.5.1989. She 3 thereafter, went to reside at house of Respondent No.l Bandu. It is undisputed that since December 1992, she is residing with her brother at Jalgaon. The Respondents are inhabitants of village Mehunbare under Chalisgaon Tahsil. 3. The appellant filed a private complaint case alleging that after about six (6) months and of the marriage, she was being ill-treated by the Respondents. The husband and inlaws were demanding Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) from her maternal relatives. They used to taunt her. They used to insult her by saying that she had some adverse impact on the brain. They use to starve her and use to extract excessive work from her. Her husband had given a false notice dated 16.11.1990, while she was residing with her brother. Since she was living with her brother, the marriages of the younger brothers of her husband i.e. accused Nos.7 and 8 were not being performed due to non-availability of alliance. Therefore, her husband took her with him on 27.1.1992. He threatened her that he would perform second marriage. He demanded her 4 signatures on a blank stamp paper. She was thus harassed and ill-treated by the Respondents (accused) in furtherance of their common intention. Lastly, on 12.6.1995, her husband (accused No.1 Bandu) got performed second marriage. Thereafter, she instituted the private complaint case. 4. The Respondents Nos.1 to 8 were tried before the learned Judicial Magistrate in pursuance to the charge (Exh.76) for the offence punishable U/s 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.Code. At the trial, the appellant (complainant) examined herself and adduced oral evidence of P.W.2 Pralhad in support of her case. The learned Judicial magistrate held that versions of both the witnesses did not sufficiently establish the charge. The learned Judicial Magistrate came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty during the period of her consortium with the Respondent No.1 Bandu. Hence, the Respondent Nos.1 to 8 were acquitted from the charge. 5 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Respondent Nos.1 to 8 and learned A.P.P. for the State. 6. At the outset, it may be noticed that though P.W.1 Chhaya (complainant) asserted that she was called upon to join company of the husband after issuance of notice dated 6.11.1990 and she had joined him on 27.1.1992, yet, except such averments in the complaint, there is hardly any material on record to show that he had taken her back to his house. In her complaint, it is stated that he took her with him under compulsion because the marriages of his younger brothers were not being settled. Her testimony, however, does not show that the accused No.1 urged her to join his company for the reason that his brother's marriages were not being settled. In fact, her testimony purports to show that she exaggerated the instances of alleged matrimonial cruelty. There is nothing in the complaint to show that accused No.l Bandu was demanding transfer of two acres of land in his name. However, she stated that he had demanded transfer 6 of two acres of land of her father in his name. 7. There is no convincing explanation about the delay caused in filing of the complaint application. The appellant was residing with the Respondent somewhere up till September/October 1990. The appellant has not filed on record the copy of notice sent by the Respondent No.1 (accused No.1) on 6.11.1990. It is difficult to countenance that inspite of sending such a notice to her, the husband took her away to his house on 27.1.1992. Except bare words of P.W. Chhaya, there is no corroborative evidence to show that she was sent again to her brother's house in December 1990. Assuming that it was so, there was no substantial reason for her to keep quiet for a such long drawn period of about three (3) years. Her version revealed that alleged ill- treatment was only on account of performing of second marriage by the accused No.1 Bandu and for no other reason. This part of her statement gives serious blow to her averments in the complaint. She admitted that Police Station of village Mehunbare is just in front of her 7 matrimonial home. She further admitted that her relatives are residing at Mehunbare. She was educated upto VII standard at the material time. She had not sent any letters to her parents regarding the alleged ill-treatment. No independent witness from the neighbourhood of the maternal home is examined. 8. On close scrutiny of the testimony of P.W.Pralhad, it is explicit that he is an interested witness. The complainant is his niece. He is inhabitant of village Undirkhede and has no personal knowledge as regards the so- called treatment meted out to the complainant. He claims to be intermeddler in the settlement of the marriage of the complainant and the accused No.l. He vaguely stated that the accused were demanding money to secure employment to accused No.7 Rajendra. He admitted that the complainant was taken to Jalgaon by her brother and since then she is residing there with him. His version is of no much significance. The oral evidence tendered by the appellant (complainant) is insufficient to prove the charge of the 8 alleged matrimonial cruelty. What emerges from the record is that she filed the private complaint case after she learnt about the second marriage of the accused No.l Bandu with a view to harass the Respondent Nos.1 to 8 and robe them together in the private complaint case. Considering the above reasons, I do not find any error committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate while acquitting the Respondents. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of acquittal is confirmed. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crappeal27898