:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.585 OF 1994 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.585 OF 1994 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.585 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant. v. 1. Sou. Kisabai Namdeo Fadke, 50 yrs. 2. Shri Namdeo Gajaba Fadke, 55 yrs. Both residing at Kangaon, Tal:Daund, District:Pune ...Respondents. (Orig.Accd.Nos.2 & 3) Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. DATE: 5th February, 2009. DATE: 5th February, 2009. DATE: 5th February, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. Heard Mr.Nakhawa, learned APP for the State. None appears for the respondents. 2. The State has filed this appeal challenging the respondents’ acquittal by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati for the offences punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1993. 3. The respondents/accused nos.2 and 3 alongwith accused no.1 chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting the complainant to ill-treatment for their demands of valuable articles such as two tolas of gold :2: and T.V. set, for voluntarily causing hurt to the complainant and for criminally intimidating the complainant. The learned Magistrate after going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution convicted the respondents and accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and they were sentenced to suffer S.I. for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, S.I. for one month more. The respondents and accused no.1 came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 323 and 506 readwith Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The respondents and accused no.1 being aggrieved by the conviction under Section 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code preferred Criminal Appeal No.4 of 1993 in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati and by the order dated 16.7.1994, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati allowed the respondents’ appeal partly and the conviction and the sentence imposed on the respondents came to be set aside. Conviction of the accused no.1 under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was maintained. However, sentence was modified and the accused no.1 was sentenced to suffer S.I. till rising of the Court and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine amount to suffer R.I. for three months. :3: 5. The complainant Anjanabai in her entire testimony did not allege specifically as to what acts were done by each of the accused. In F.I.R. at Exhibit 27 act of illtreatment was attributed to all the accused, however, without specifying as to which act was done by whom. The learned Additional Sessions Judge considered the evidence of complainant and took a view that it is not probable that the respondents, the old persons would have everytime joined accused no.1 in beating their daughter-in-law. The learned Additional Sessions Judge also found that the allegations agains tthe present respondents are exaggerated and consequently did not believe complainant in this regard. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, held that the prosecution case as against the original accused no.1 is proved, and, therefore, conviction of the accused no.1 was confirmed and the conviction of the present respondents, who are the mother-in-law and father-in-law came to be set aside. 6. The mariage of the complainant Anjanabai with the original accused no.1 was performed in the year 1988. The alleged incident of illtreatment was occured :4: in the year 1990. Though the learned Magistrate convicted the present respondents and the original accused no.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498A, the learned Additional Sessions Judge in an appeal acquitted the present respondents by the impugned judgment and order dated 16.7.1994. I have also perused the depositions of the witnesses and after perusal of the depositions of the prosecution witnesses, I find that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is a possible view and, therefore, no interference is required in the aforesaid judgment. 7. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.)