1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.42 OF 2008 * Gausiya Bano Amir Karpude, Age 26 years, Occupation: Household, R/o. At present Mumbai, Shanani Chal Kurla West Mumbai. ... Petitioner. Versus 1) Amir s/o Mustafa Karpude, Age 30 years, Occupation : Labour. 2) Mustafa s/o Khajasab Karpude, Age 65 years, Occupation : Labour. 3) Julekha w/o Mustafa Karpude, Age 50 years, Occupation : Labour. 4) Gowsm8iyaano d/o Mustafa Karpude, Age 20 year, Occupation : Household, All resident of Momeen Galli, Ausa, Taluka Ausa, District Latur. 5) The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents. -------- 2 Smt. A.S. Mantri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. A.A. Mundhe, holding for Shri. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4. Smt. R.R. Mane, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State – respondent No.5. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL, J. DATE: 21st AUGUST 2009 PER COURT : 1) The respondents – accused were charged for an offence punishable under section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian penal Code. The prosecution case is that petitioner was married with accused – respondent no.1 on 30-5-2003. At the time of marriage an amount of Rs.15000 was paid as dowry and other articles were delivered to the respondents. In March 2004 respondent and his family members demanded money and started ill treating on account of non payment of the same. The brother of the petitioner had brought the petitioner to her matrimonial house and at that time he had given Rs. 20,000/- to the father- 3 in-law of the petitioner. In October 2004 the brother of the petitioner came to the house and had given Rs.10,000/- to her father-in-law. But the demand of money continued. Therefore the prosecution was lodged. 2) The trial Court considered the evidence led by the prosecution wherein the complainant and five witnesses were examined. The trial Court did not find that the petitioner was ill-treated by the respondents on account of non payment of money. The details regarding payment of money was scrutinized by the trial Court which was not found to be convincing. The petitioner was not even able to tell the name of the brother and submitted that her brother was present when amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid in October 2004 whereas, the witness Anwar states hat he had paid Rs.10,000 and at that time none else was present than himself and the accused persons. Witness Anwar was not able to say in which month the amount was paid to the accused No.2. 4 Therefore the prosecution could not lead satisfactory, cogent and reliable evidence on the point of payment of Rs.10,000 and Rs.20,000 on different occasions to the respondents. Apart from that, it was necessary for the prosecution to establish the offence of cruelty meted out to the petitioner by the respondents. The evidence is lacking in that direction too. Therefore, the trial Court by judgment and order dated 22-11-2007 acquitted the accused. This revision petition was filed by the complainant. 3) On appreciation of the evidence and considering the limitation in entertaining revision application under section 397, 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I am of the considered view that the petition deserves dismissal. It is accordingly dismissed. (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ crra.42.08