* 1 * Cri.Appln. 4637.2009 7.12.2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4637 OF 2009 [For Leave to Appeal] IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ...Applicant/ Orig. Complainant V/S. Abdul Mannan Nabisahab Nadaf & Ors. ...Respondents/ Orig.Accd nos.1 to 4. * * * * Mr. V.B. Kondedeshmukh, APP for the applicant. None for the respondents. CORAM : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J 7 December, 2010. P.C. : 1. This application is filed by the State for leave to file appeal to challenge the order of acquittal of the respondents by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case No. 23 of 2009 of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 315 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Respondent no.1 is the husband of the complainant-Anjum, respondent no.2 is her brother-in-law, * 2 * Cri.Appln. 4637.2009 7.12.2010 respondent no.3 is her sister-in-law i.e. wife of respondent no.2 and respondent no.4 is the sister of respondent no.1. The complainant, Anjum was married to respondent no.1 on 18th May, 2005. She alleged that at the time of marriage, her parents had paid Rs. 50,000/- towards dowry on the date of marriage and Rs.10,000/- on the date prior to the marriage. She has also claimed that the gold ornaments worth Rs.54,000/- had been given by her mother and maternal aunt at the time of the marriage. It is alleged in the complaint that on the second day of the marriage, respondent no.1 started harassing her by saying that her parents had not paid sufficient dowry and not performed the marriage in a proper manner. About a month thereafter, respondents no.2 and 3 started residing with respondent no.1 and the complainant. The complaint alleges that at the instance of the other respondents, respondent no. 1 started harassing and insulting her. Respondents no.1 and 2 used to beat her while demanding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from her parents for the purpose of purchasing a flat. They demanded that otherwise the flat standing in the name of her father be transferred to the name of respondent no.1. When she fell sick, * 3 * Cri.Appln. 4637.2009 7.12.2010 instead of taking her to a Doctor, she was left to go to her parents house, where she took the treatment of Dr.Dhende. It is alleged that on 6th January, 2006 when the complainant was 2 months pregnant, while she was residing with her parents respondent no.1 took her to a shoping centre by name Pyramid Centre, on the pretext of wanting to have a talk with her. When she went out with him, he gave fist blows and kicks to her stomach saying that he did not want to have the child. This caused bleeding with pain in the stomach leading to abortion of the child. 2. Initially, offence registered against the respondents vide C.R. No. 136 of 2006 was of the offences punishable under Sections 498- A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. After re- investigation, offences punishable under Sections 312 and 315 of Indian Penal Code came to be added. The prosecution examined the complainant-P.W.1, her friends (P.W.2), (P.W.4), (P.W.6), her sister (P.W.3), her mother (P.W. 5), Medical Experts (P.W.7 and P.W. 8) and Investigation Officer (P.W.9). On perusal of the evidence, the Sessions Court found that the complaint as regards the demand of dowry at the time of marriage was without any substance as * 4 * Cri.Appln. 4637.2009 7.12.2010 admittedly there was writing reduced between the parties about sharing of expenditure of the marriage. The writing in the custody of the complainant had not been produced. Since there was share of marriage expenses and in view of the best evidence not being produced, the learned Sessions Judge drew an inference that on production, the documents would have spoken contrary to the evidence of the witnesses. As regards the ornaments given by P.W.5 and her sister to the complainant, though P.W.5 admitted in her cross-examination that she was in possession of the receipts for the ornaments, the same were not produced before the Court to substantiate the claim of ornaments. The Court also disbelieved the evidence of the complainant as it found serious contradictions in the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.6, her friend. As per the evidence of the complainant, Reshma (P.W.6) had not witnesses the assault by respondent no.1 on the stomach of the complainant, whereas, as per the evidence of P.W.6 she had witnessed the incident. This contradiction being a material contradiction, the Court disbelieved the two witnesses and concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondents in furtherance of their common intention * 5 * Cri.Appln. 4637.2009 7.12.2010 had subjected the complainant to cruelty by harassing her over demand of Rs.2,00,000/- or of transfer of flat which was standing in the name of father and also for dowry. It also held that the prosecution failed to prove that respondent no.1 on 29th January, 2006 had by giving kicks on the stomach of the complainant, had voluntarily caused miscarriage of the child and thereby intentionally prevented the child in her womb to be born alive. It also held that the prosecution had failed to prove that all the respondents had voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant on 6th January, 2006. The perusal of the exhaustive impugned judgment and order completely supports the inferences drawn by the trial court. 3. The trial court also took note of the fact that there was delay of 2 months in filing the FIR by the complainant, which delay has not been explained at all. In the circumstances, there is no substance whatsoever made out for challenging the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the application for leave to file appeal is dismissed. (SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J)