( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 82 OF 1999 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant through Police Station Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. Versus Sunil s/o. Ravivdhan Shah .. Respondent Aged 50 years, r/o. Kailas Hotel, Verul, Tq. Khultabad, Dist. Aurangabad. Shri K.M. Surayawanshi, A.P.P. for the appellant. Shri S.M. Godsay, Advocate for respondent. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 13.11.2009 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the 6th Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Aurangabad, in R.C.C. No. 3 of 1997, decided on 22.09.1998, whereby present respondent was acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 498-A, 504 and 506 of the I.P.C. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to this appeal are stated as below :- ( 2 ) . Original complainant Rupa Shah is wife of respondent Sunil. They married on 25.01.1990. It is case of the prosecution that respondent – Sunil was running Hotel Kailas at Verul, Tal. Khultabad. About six months prior to 20.11.1996 according to the complainant, respondent/accused was not talking properly with her. He was causing her mental and physical cruelty. On 20.11.1996 at about 6.45 a.m. respondent beat the complainant in Room No.2 of the hotel. The beating continued for two hours and thereafter the respondent restrained the complainant from going to the Police Station for lodging complaint. However, she lodged complaint on that day, which came to be registered by Khultabad Police Station. Complainant Rupa Shah was sent to the Rural Hospital at Khultabad for medical examination. Spot panchanama was prepared. Statements of various witnesses were recorded. Finally charge-sheet was sent. 3. When the matter came up for hearing before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses and except P.W.6-Rupa, the Medical Officer, the Investigation Officer and P.W.8-Sanjay Deora, no other witness supported the prosecution case. They were declared hostile. Thus, ( 3 ) P.W.1-Gautam Jadhav was panch witness on the spot panchanama. He did not support the prosecution case. P.W.2 - Sk. Fakir Mohammad Sk. Shabbir was also panch. He also did not support the prosecution case. They said that on the panchanama, they put signatures but they do not know contents of the panchanama. P.W.3-Santosh Kathare and P.W.4- Santaram Tupe have also not supported prosecution case. Both stated that complainant Rupa was wife of the accused and was residing in the hotel for sometime, but they did not know about the incident. P.W.5-Mohammad Aref Sk. Afzal recorded complaint and sent the complainant for medical examination. 4. Thus, the main evidence was of P.W.6-complainant Rupa Shah. She stated that on 20.11.1996 she made telephone call to her daughter. Her daughter told her about her illness and therefore the complainant started weeping. Then she went to room No.2. Her husband asked her about her weeping. She stated the reason and thereafter her husband pulled her hair, slapped her and beat her by fists. Her husband tried to choke her mouth. She proved complaint at Exh.21. She also said that her husband was giving mental torture to her and insulted her. It is noted by the learned ( 4 ) Magistrate that it was second marriage of the complainant with the accused and she had obtained divorce from her first husband. There was no complaint lodged prior to 20.11.1996 regarding any previous incident. In the cross-examination she admitted that she used to go to Verul. She also filed case for maintenance against the accused in the Family Court at Bombay. She also further admitted that the accused filed divorce petition against her in the Family Court at Bombay. It is case of the respondent/accused that the complainant was always demanding money to the accused and she filed this false case. 5. P.W.7-Dr. Jagpal Yeotikar deposed that on 20.11.1996, he examined Rupa Shah and found following three injuries :- i) Swelling over the upper lip on left side i.e. 1 cm x 1 cm ii) Swelling of right thumb, the movement were free but painful iii) Swelling over the scalp on occipital bone i.e. 1 cm x 1 cm. . The doctor further admitted in the cross- examination that on 19.11.1996 the accused/respondent had brought the complainant with him and at that time there was ( 5 ) injury to Rupa Shah on right thumb. Thus injury No.2 was not caused during the alleged incident which took place on 20.11.1996. The injuries are minor and if a person is beaten for two hours, it is highly improbable that only such minor injuries on upper lip and swelling over scalp on occipital bone would be there. So, definitely complainant - Rupa Shah was exaggerating the incident. There is no corroboration to her word. 6. P.W.8-Sanjay Deora stated that on 19.11.1996 he made telephone from Aurangabad to Hotel Kailas. On 20.11.1996 he went to Verul and the complainant told him about the beating. He is friend of son of Rupa Shah, by name Rajendra. 7. Considering the totality of the circumstances, the learned Magistrate did not believe solitary word of the complainant. He did not find her evidence trustworthy. He found that though there was case of physical & mental torture and demand of divorce for six months prior to 20.11.1996, the complainant has admitted in cross-examination that she resided alternatively for eight days at Verul and for eight ( 6 ) days at Bombay in the month. Prior to the lodging of the complaint, she resided at Verul for 21 days. It is also brought on record that the respondent/accused had undergone bypass surgery in the year 1993 and it was held unbelievable that such a man would be in a position to beat for two hours. There was no injury on the neck, though it is said that there was attempt to strangulate. 8. After going through the judgment of the Trial Court, it appears that the reasons given are proper and reasonable. This is not a case where another view is possible. In this view of the matter, this appeal must fail. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order passed by 6th Judicial Magistrate, F.C., Aurangabad, dated 22.09.1998, in R.C.C. No.3 of 1997, is hereby confirmed. The bail bond of the respondent stands discharged. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2009/NOV09/crap82.99