( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 35 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant through M.I.D.C. Waluj Police Station, Surekha w/o. Rajesh Gaikwad, Age. 22 years, Occ. Household, R/o. Pandharpur, Gulab Ganga Complex, Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad. Versus 1. Rajesh s/o. Laxman Gaikwad .. Respondents Age. 28 years, R/o. Pandharpur, 2. Kusum w/o. Laxman Gaikwad, Age. 52 years, R/o. Pandharpur, 3. Vijaya w/o. Sunil Bansode, Age. 30 years, R/o. Baijipura, Aurangabad. 4. Sanjana Santosh Parkhe, Age. 25 years, R/o. Ranjangaon Shenpunji, 5. Pournima s/o. Laxman Gaikwad, Age. 18 years, R/o. Pandharpur, For all Tal. & Dist. Aurangabad. Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the appellant. Shri Imran Khan h/f. Shri S.K. Barlota, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5. ( 2 ) CORAM : P.R. BORKAR,J. DATED : 18.01.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. This is an appeal filed by the State being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, 10th Court, Aurangabad, in R.C.C. No. 770 of 1998, decided on 20.09.1999, whereby the respondents were acquitted of offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the I.P.C. 2. Some of the facts which are admitted at this stage may be stated as below :- . P.W.1–Surekha is wife of respondent No.1–Rajesh. Respondent No.2 is mother of respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 are sisters of respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are married and respondent No. 5 is unmarried. On 10.07.1998 P.W.1-Surekha lodged complaint at Waluj Police Station, Aurangabad, alleging that she married respondent No. 1 on 12.05.1995. Thereafter, she started living with her ( 3 ) husband. P.W.1-Surekha’s husband was loving her. She gave birth to son Aditya. However, respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were always abusing and taunting her. Her father-in-law had married with another woman and lived at Aurangabad separately. It is also said that respondent Nos. 2 to 5 were instigating respondent No.1 to beat Surekha and to bring Rs. 25,000/-from her parents. On 17.05.1997 at 11.00 p.m. respondent Nos. 2 to 5 told respondent No.1 that Surekha had not been doing any work and therefore respondent No.1 beat Surekha with fists and kicks blows. At that time other respondents also beat her and told her to bring Rs. 25,000/- for purchase of scooter. It is her complaint that she was kept starving two days at a time. Respondent No.1 also threatened Surekha to marry second time and get dowry from second wife. On 09.07.1998 when Surekha was at her house, she pushed T.V. At that time her mother-in-law scolded her and then respondent Nos. 2 to 5 beat her with fists and kicks blows. In the evening when respondent No.1 came home, Surekha complained him about the beating, but he also gave her fists and kicks blows. Respondent No.2 said that she should not reside with them until she brings Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing T.V. and Scooter. On the basis of complaint, ( 4 ) police registered crime, investigated the case and sent charge-sheet to the Court. 3. The prosecution in all examined six witnesses. Considering their evidence, the learned Magistrate passed order of acquittal as stated above. It is this order which is challenged in this appeal. 4. So far as evidence of P.W.1-Surekha is concerned, it is stated that she has improved over her complaint to large extent. Thus, she stated that on 17.05.1997 she was beaten mercilessly and she was driven out of the house. Respondent No.1 told her that she should bring Rs. 25,000/- from her parents for purchasing scooter. She was also given electric shocks. It is argued that in the complaint it is not mentioned that the complainant was given electric shock. In her statement the complainant also narrated incident occurred on 09.07.1998, but she improved over said complaint and alleged that respondent No.2 gave her blow with sickle on her left hand and therefore she sustained injury. She also stated that she was beaten with handle of axe by accused No. 2. The omissions were brought on record that in the ( 5 ) complaint she did not mention that on 09.07.1998 she was beaten with handle of axe or with sickle. According to P.W. 1-Surekha, after the incident of beating on 09.07.1998, she went to her sister P.W.5-Prabhavati’s house and narrated the incident. P.W.5-Prabhavati took her back to the house of the accused. Accused No.1 came at about 5.30 p.m. from duty and then complainant narrated the incident to him. He also beat her for going to sister’s house. So, it is said that the incident narrated in the complaint and as stated before the Court cannot be said to be same. It is further case of P.W. 1-Surekha that thereafter she went to the house of P.W.5- Prabhavati. Again P.W.5-Prabhavati brought her back and the respondents did not allow her to enter the house, so she sat in front of the house and had talked with father on telephone. On telephone respondent No.1 gave abuses and threats to her father. She stayed outside the house for whole night. It is said that this story is not supported by the complaint nor there is corroboration by P.W.5-Prabhavati. So, there is clear tendency to exaggerate. 5. P.W.5-Prabhavati in her statement at Exh. 37 has stated that P.W.1-Surekha had told her about the ( 6 ) illtreatments for not getting Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing scooter. P.W.5-Prabhavati had sent P.W.1-Surekha back. Then again P.W.1-Surekha had came at about 7.00 to 7.30 p.m. to P.W.5-Prabhavati and complained that her mother-in-law had given blows with sickle on middle finger and then P.W.5- Prabhavati rang to the father of P.W.1-Surekha who was resident of Kopargaon. She did not say that Surekha went back to the house of the accused or that there was talk between father and accused No.1. So, it is said that the story is concocted and not reliable. 6. The Trial Court has also observed that the very fact that she has stated in the complaint that T.V. was pushed by P.W.1-Surekha and therefore quarrel started between P.W.1-Surekha and her mother-in-law, shows that the statement of demand of Rs. 25,000/- for purchasing T.V. and scooter was not true. It is also brought on record in cross-examination of the complainant that after marriage and birth of son, respondent No.1 used to take P.W.1-Surekha and their son on scooter to various temples. So, it is said that scooter was already there with respondent No.1 and there was no necessity to demand money for purchasing scooter. ( 7 ) 7. Evidence of P.W.2-Dr.Chavan shows that on 10.07.1998 at about 12.15 p.m. he examined P.W.1-Surekha and recorded history of assault by mother-in-law on 09.07.1998 at 12.00 noon. So, there was no complaint against other respondents. P.W.2-Dr.Chavan found one linear abrasion of ½ cm. and contusion over lower abdomen with pain and tenderness. The doctor stated that injury No.2 on the middle finger was possible while cutting vegetable. 8. There is evidence of P.W.3 Agasthi, father and P.W. 4-Vimal, mother of Surekha. Both of them stated that the complainant used to complain about illtreatment. One letter written by Surekha to her father is produced on record. It is dated 30.05.1997. About 14 months before the said complaint, the letter was sent. Therein P.W.-1Surekha complained that she was illtreated for bringing Rs. 25,000/- for scooter and there was mental and physical illtreatment. She was kept starving. Her husband respondent No.1 used to give threat of deserting. She also said that she was given electric shocks, but it is argued that in the complaint there is no mention of sending letter or about electric shocks. ( 8 ) The Trial Court did not believe the letter. 9. After going through the judgment of the Trial Court, in my opinion, though another view was possible, there were material omissions. Since the view taken by the Trial Court cannot be said to be perverse or unreasonable and the Trial Court has given benefit of doubt, no interference in the appeal is called for. Hence, the appeal against order of acquittal is dismissed. The order passed by the Trial Court is hereby confirmed. The bail bonds executed by the respondents stand discharged. [P.R. BORKAR,J.] snk/2010/JAN10/crap35.00