1 Cri.Appeal No.336/2000 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Ambad, District Jalna. ... APPELLANT VERSUS 1. Sk. Mahemood s/o Sk. Pashu, Age 30 years, Occ. Agri., 2. Sk. Pashu s/o Sk. Miya, Age 60 years, Occ. Agri., 3. Sk. Rashid Sk. Pashu, Age 25 years, Occ. Agri. 4. Sou. Chandbee w/o Sk. Pashu, Age 50 years, Occ. Household All R/o Parada, Taluka Ambad, District Jalna. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri N.H. Borade, A.P.P. for the appellant Mrs. Vanita S. Sangole, Advocate holding for Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni, Advocate for respondents ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 26th August, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal arises from the acquittal of the respondents/ accused of the offences punishable under Sections 2 Cri.Appeal No.336/2000 498-A, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, recorded by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Ambad in R.C.C. No.38/1997 on 27.4.2000. One Nadanbee w/o Shaikh Mahemood, the respondent/ accused No.1 lodged a report (Exh. 22), alleging mortal threats given by the accused persons, her husband and in-laws, the co-accused, to burn her alive or throw her in well if she failed to bring Rs.20,000/- from her father, and further alleging physical violence stretching over 7 to 8 months prior to lodging of the report. She further complained in her report (Exh. 32) that since 15 days prior to lodging of the report, she was being beaten by the said accused persons at her matrimonial home while keeping the taperecorder on in loud mode to douse her cries, and around 8.00 a.m. on 28.1.1997 she was assaulted in presence of her parents and local persons and the accused No.3 Rashid, her brother-in-law even took axe for the purposes of assault and she was saved by her mother. According to her, her parents had been to her matrimonial home on 28.1.1997 in response to her message that she was being continuously beaten by her in-laws. 2. Crime was registered under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at C,R, No. 20/1997 with Ambad Police Station and investigation was carried out by P.W.4 Bhagwan Gaikwad, Head Constable, Ambad Police Station. Charge sheet was filed and the case came up for hearing 3 Cri.Appeal No.336/2000 in due course. Charges under Sections 498-A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were framed at Exh. 20. 3. The prosecution examined the complainant P.W.1 Nadanbee and her parents – P.W.2 Sayed Sardar and P.W.3 Hasinabee and P.W.4 Bhagwan Gaikwad. 4. P.W.1 Nadanbee deposed that she was being ill- treated for one year for the reason of failure to fulfill demand of Rs. 20,000/- made by the accused persons to provide finances to her husband for installation of a photo shop. She defined the ill- treatment as giving of mortal threats and deprivation of food for a period of 2-3 days. According to her, her parents tried to persuade the accused persons to mend their conduct, in vain and her husband left her at Bori and fetched her back to matrimonial home some 2-3 days thereafter. Pertinently, she deposed, all the accused beat her for a period of 15 days and thereafter accused No.3 Shaikh Rashid, her brother-in-law called her parents at Parada, and accordingly, at 8.00 a.m. on 20th January, of a month which she could not tell, her parents reached Parada at the time she was being beaten by accused and the beating continued in front of her parents. 5. Cross-examination of P.W.1 Nadanbee reveals that, she made improvements particularly as regards she being starved 4 Cri.Appeal No.336/2000 and beaten continuously by all the accused persons for 15 days. Her cross-examination further reveals that she was not medically examined for the purpose of bringing on record her physical condition at the material time. 6. P.W.2 Sayed Sardar reveals that he was invited to Parada by accused No.3 for Niyaz ceremony – a ceremony to share God’s blessings (Prasad). He reiterated the story of all the accused persons beating P.W.1 Nadanbee. It is rather strange that P.W.2 Sayed Sardar would have been called for Niyaz ceremony when the matrimonial relations between the accused No.1 and P.W.1 Nadanbee were strained and all the accused were hostile to P.W.1 Nadanbee. P.W.3 Rashidabee towed the line of P.W.2 Sayed Sardar with material improvements in her testimony. 7. Learned trial Court observed that, P.W.1 Nadanbee had temerity of pretending facts before the Court only for the purpose to earn sympathy of the Court. In the opinion of the learned trial Court, parents of P.W.1 Nadanbee who stood in the witness box, were likely to support P.W.1 Nadanbee. Learned trial Court, therefore, looked for corroboration from an independent source and could not find one, much less the medical evidence. In that regard, learned trial Court questioned as to why P.W.4 Bhagwan Gaikwad, the investigation officer had not noticed any 5 Cri.Appeal No.336/2000 injury on the body of P.W.1 Nadanbee in order to prompt him to send her for medical examination particularly when it was a case of continuous beating for 15 days. Learned trial Court, therefore, observed that non examination of the person of P.W.1 Nadanbee medically spoke volumes and it was, therefore, highly unsafe to believe the evidence of P.W.1 Nadanbee. 8. Learned trial Court passed the following concluding remarks : “Thus, having regard to the inconsistencies and contradictions as pointed out in between respective evidence of PW-1 to 3, coupled with the fact that evidence of PW-1 is found to be exaggerated and false on vital aspects of the prosecution case, it is evident that prosecution case cannot be held as proved against accused persons in respect of any of the alleged offences beyond all reasonable doubts. . . . . . .. . .. . “ 9. Learned A.P.P. conceded that the learned trial Court had gone through all the evidence and weighed its merits and demerits from all angles. However, he could not point out what wrong the learned trial Court did in arriving at the final conclusion. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Bail bonds of the accused stand cancelled. ( U.D. SALVI, J. )