1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.177 OF 2007 (Vandana w/o Raghunath Shejul vs. The State of Maharashtra and others) -------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Court’s or Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Judge’s or directions and Registrar’s orders Orders Mr. C.V.Thombre, Adv., for the applicant. Mr. K.M.Suryawanshi, APP for respondent / State. Mr. G.N.Patil, Adv., h/f Mr. V.D.Salunke, Adv., for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Notice of respondent nos. 2, 5 and 6 though served, absent. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DATE: 6/8/2009 P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. G.N.Patil, Counsel, holding for Mr. V.D.Salunke, Counsel, for the husband and other relatives. 2. The matrimonial bickering has taken the husband to file divorce petition and, as a sequel thereto, it is alleged that the wife has initiated prosecution for an offence under Section 323, 498-A of IPC on the allegations that, on 15.8.2005, the husband and other relatives have doused kerosene on the wife, witnessed by her relation, however, no 2 casualty could take place as it was prevented in time. Consequently, based on the said incident, FIR dt.14.9.2005 came to be lodged. 3. The learned Judge, on evaluation of the evidence, acquitted the accused/respondents by judgment dt.29.5.2007 and hence the revision. 4. During the course of submission Mr. Thombre informs that the marriage petition initiated by the husband is dismissed on 25th April, 2007. The accused no.5 is arrayed as she used to say that she wanted to marry accused no.1 Raghunath. The wife Vandana had claimed that she had happy cohabitation with the husband for about one and half year and, thereafter, there was illtreatment, making a demand of Rs.50,000/- for improvement in the Pan Stall business. 5. The wife could not account for any dates or any peculiar month or year in which such demand was initiated by her husband/accused no.1 or it was so conveyed to her parents. It was suggested that, indeed, no incident has taken place as the wife had gone to parental house in Feb.,2005 and had no occasion to join the husband at matrimonial home. 6. The learned Judge, on analysis of evidence, found that presence of Rajubai on 3 15.8.2005 at the residence of accused no.1 itself is doubtful; she had no occasion to visit the house of accused no.1 and she is a got up witness. 7. The assertion that it was the Hindu Marriage Petition No.85/2005 dt.18.8.2005, which was the root cause for initiation of the proceedings under Sections 498-A, 323 of IPC stands. Inspite of there being such brutality, as allegedly, wife has stated, on 15.8.2005, she was doused with kerosene and threatened, she approached the Police after service of summons in the matrimonial proceedings initiated by the husband belatedly on 15.9.2005 and, after being served with the summons, she approached the Court. 8. It is more than clear, the parties were not sailing well as notice for divorce was served by the husband on 6.6.2005. 9. Taking survey of all these facts, the findings recorded by the learned Judge in acqutting the accused cannot be said to be wild surmises. The evidence was properly assessed. No legal infraction. Revision dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE agp/177-07crra