1 APEAL-ST-979.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2010 {STAMP NO.979 OF 2010} Roma Sukhajitsingh Saini .... Appellant Vs. Sukhajitsingh Nirmalsingh Saini & Anr. .... Respondents Ms Rebecca Gonsalvez for the Appellant. S/Shri S.V. Marwadi i/b S.P. Narkar for Respondent No.1. Ms M.M. Deshmukh, APP, for the State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: AUGUST 04, 2011 P.C: 1. This is an appeal by the victim against the Judgment of acquittal of the respondent-husband by the Court of Sessions by reversing his conviction recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane. The State had preferred an application for leave to file appeal being Criminal Application No.5276 of 2010. That application was rejected by this Court by the order dated 7-7-2011. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband submits that once this Court 2 APEAL-ST-979.10 had examined the Judgment which is sought to be appealed against and had refused leave to file appeal against that Judgment, there would be no question of entertaining an appeal at the instance of the victim and therefore this appeal ought to be dismissed summarily under Section 384 of Cr.P.C.. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant- victim submits that while refusing leave this Court has noted certain observations in the Judgment of the Appellate Court which are factually incorrect. She points out that the learned Judge had observed in the Judgment that for last four years the victim was residing with her parents, which was factually wrong. She also pointed out that while the learned Judge has observed in para 16 of the Judgment that the complainant had admitted that her husband had filed an application for divorce before the filing of the complaint and that therefore she lodged the complaint to the police station. While refusing leave this Court had noted that since the complaint in respect of the alleged ill-treatment was made after the respondent filed a divorce petition and when the victim was already staying with her parents for four months, the view taken by the learned 3 APEAL-ST-979.10 Judge could not be said to be perverse or improbable. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since factually the complainant never admitted that she had filed the complaint after the divorce petition was filed, the findings of the learned Appellate Judge were incorrect and reliance on those findings by this Court, while refusing leave, was also incorrect and therefore refusal of leave to the State could not come in the way of entertaining the present appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-husband submitted that apart from the observations which may have been founded on incorrect reading of evidence by the Court of Sessions, there is ample material to show that the respondent had absolutely no role to play in any ill-treatment to the victim. He pointed out, first, that it is the victim's own admission in the report that she was staying with her husband at Bangalore till 26-3-2006. Her husband left for Bangalore alone on 1-4-2006 and from 1-4-2006 till she shifted to her parents' house on 28-5-2006, her husband was not at all concerned with the treatment given to the appellant. The learned counsel for the respondent therefore submitted that since 4 APEAL-ST-979.10 there was no allegation of any ill-treatment to the appellant at the hands of her husband, the acquittal of her husband need not be interfered with. He also made available for my perusal the entire evidence of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the complaint dated 4-9-2006, which was delivered to the police on 10-9-2006, it has been categorically stated that before her husband left for Bangalore, on the night of 30-3-2006, her husband had participated in pressurizing her to write a note that she was consenting to divorce. Recitals in para 10 of the report dated 4-9-2006 show that most of the allegations are against the other in-laws. It is only stated that the appellant s husband Sukhjeet, in his hand-writing, prepared a note saying that she was prepared to divorce him and that there was no pressure from her husband or his family members. She had further stated that her husband and in-laws threatened to beat and throw her out on the street if she did not sign the note. This is the solitary incident of ill- treatment attributed to her husband. Even after 1-4-2006 the appellant continued to stay with her in-laws. The other allegation against the husband is that her husband told her to quietly do the work and to keep his parents happy and 5 APEAL-ST-979.10 that after 15-4-2006 her husband refused to take her calls and would not reply to her e- mails. Except all this, there are no other allegations against the husband. Before the Court the appellant had categorically stated in para 5 of her cross-examination that she had no quarrel with her husband on the question of her not conceiving. In fact, the deposition does not show that there are any allegations of ill- treatment against her husband. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in para 2 of the examination-in-chief itself there is an allegation about ill-treatment attributable to the respondent but the sentence is ambivalent and does not show that it was the respondent who ill-treated the appellant. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on a Judgment of this Court in Ramchandra Kundalika Jadhav & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2011 ALL M.R. (Cri.) 93, which is unhelpful since it is not shown that the respondent had any grievance about the appellant not conceiving or that the respondent was ill-treating the appellant on that count. The subsequent act of the respondent of filing a divorce petition would not result in the conclusion that the respondent was ill-treating 6 APEAL-ST-979.10 the appellant on the ground of her not conceiving. In any case though there can be no doubt that for the purpose of proving an offence punishable under Section 498-A injury could be mental as well, but it has to be a grave injury and not an ordinary injury. Therefore, one instance of the respondent s possibly toeing the line of his parents on the night of 30-3-2006 should not have been sufficient to conclude that he was guilty of wilful conduct which was of such a nature as to cause grave injury to the mental health of the appellant. There are no allegations of physical assaults by the respondent. As far as explanation (b) to Section 498-A is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has not challenged those findings. In view of this, the appeal is summarily dismissed under Section 384 of Cr.P.C.. (R.C. CHAVAN, J.)