High Court

Legal Reasoning

revn-356.04.odt1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.356 OF 20041) Manik S/o Dnyaneshwar Alse, Age-28 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Alswadi, Tq-Majalgaon, District-Beed,2) Dnyaneshwar s/o Kisanrao Alse, Age-58 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-Alsewadi, Tq-Majalgaon, District-Beed,3) Bhaskar Dnyaneshwar Alse, Age-22 years, Occu:Agril., R/o-As Above,4) Sow. Kusum W/o Dnyaneshwar Alse, Age-50 years, Occu:Agril, R/o-As Above. ...APPLICANTS (Names of Applicant Nos.2 and 4 deleted as expired) VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ...RESPONDENT ... Ms. Sonali Ganesh Somwanshi Advocate h/f. Mr. N.L. Jadhav Advocate for Applicant Nos. 1 and 3. (Names of applicant Nos.2 and 4 deleted as expired). Mr. D.J. Patil, A.P.P. for Respondent - State. ... CORAM: S.G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 15th JULY, 2024 revn-356.04.odt2ORAL JUDGMENT :1.Heard the learned counsel for the applicants and learnedAPP for the State. 2.Applicant Nos. 2 and 4 have been reported dead long back.Hence the Revision Application is abated against them. 3.Applicant Nos. 1 and 3 along with the deceased co-accusedwere convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-Aread with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed toundergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fineof Rs.1000/- each. They were also convicted for the offencepunishable under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the IndianPenal Code and directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment fortwo years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, by the learnedJudicial Magistrate, First Class, Majalgaon. 4.The First Appellate Court, in Appeal, reduced the sentencefrom three years rigorous imprisonment to two years rigorousimprisonment and fine of Rs.500/- each for the offencepunishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.However, the sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two revn-356.04.odt3years and a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable underSection 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been maintained. 5.Learned counsel for the applicants has vehemently arguedthat both Courts did not consider the delay in filing thecomplaint, which was not specifically explained. The mentalhealth of the victim/wife was also not correctly appreciated. Shehas admitted that she was under psychiatric treatment. Thewitnesses to the seizure panchnama have not supported theprosecution case. The witnesses are on contradictions in materialfacts. The brother of the victim was a planted witness who cameeight days after the incident. This material fact has also beenignored. The medical opinion was able to draw two possibleviews considering the injuries suffered by the injured. Theingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code have notbeen established beyond a reasonable doubt. But both Courtsbelieved the victim. There is absolutely no evidence before theCourt that all the accused, with common intention, have causedinjuries to the wife and ill-treated her for the demand of dowry.There was nothing on record to believe that Section 4 of theprovisions of the Dowry Act has been attracted. The wife hassettled the dispute amicably in R.C.C. No.180 of 2000, registeredfor the offences punishable under Sections 494, 109 read with revn-356.04.odt4Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A lump-sum amount hasbeen paid to the victim/wife. These are the mitigatingcircumstances. She prayed to allow the Revision by quashing andsetting aside both the Judgments.6.Learned APP would submit that both Courts below havecorrectly appreciated the evidence. The evidence of the panch onseizure panchnama does not make the prosecution casedoubtful. The so-called contradictions and omissions are notmaterial. The evidence produced by the prosecution inspiresconfidence. The so-called two possible views on medicalevidence would not support the contention of the applicants. Forconstituting an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian PenalCode, grievous injury is not essential. The term ‘cruelty’ hasbeen defined under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a viewto coercing her or any person related to her to meet anyunlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is in onaccount of failure by her or any person related to her to meetsuch demand, is also ‘cruelty’ as defined under Section 498-A ofthe Indian Penal Code. The conduct of the applicants was wilfulin nature as it was likely to drive the wife to cause danger to herlife, limb or health (mental or physical). He would submit thatconsidering the scope of the Revision under Section 397 read revn-356.04.odt5with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there are noapparent errors on the face of the record that warrantinterference with the impugned Judgments and orders. Heprayed to dismiss the Revision.7.Perused the papers and material placed before the Courtwith the impugned Judgments and orders. Both Courts wereconsistent in the appreciation of facts. The victim wasconsistently complaining against the applicants that she was ill-treated for the demand of dowry. The injury was also provedwhich caused mental and physical pain to the wife/woman.Learned APP is correct in saying that to establish the offenceunder Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, causing graveinjuries is not essential. The conduct of the accused was wilful innature. That drove her from the house, and she caused theinjuries. The reason for causing injury was the demand fordowry, which was established. The material placed on record issufficient to believe that the injuries were caused. There are noprima facie errors in appreciation of the evidence. However, thesubmission is made that both the applicants were behind barsfor ten days after the conviction was confirmed in the Appeal.8.There were mitigating circumstances; the victim/ wifesettled the dispute with the applicants on receiving a lump-sum revn-356.04.odt6amount. That shows that she might have waived the allegationslevelled against the applicants in the police report. Theprosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.However, the subsequent development of settlement would helpthe applicants to reduce the sentence against them. Hence, thefollowing order:- O R D E R(I)The Revision Application is partly allowed.(II)The Judgment of conviction passed by theJudicial Magistrate First Class, Majalgaon in RegularCriminal Case No.86 of 1998 and confirmed by theFirst Appellate Court i.e. Ist Ad-hoc AdditionalSessions Judge, Beed in Criminal Appeal No.5 of2001, is maintained.(III)However, the sentence to suffer rigorousimprisonment for two years and to pay a fine ofRs.500/- each for the offence punishable underSection 498-A and Section 324 read with Section 34of the Indian Penal Code, is reduced to the period often days the applicants have undergone after theAppeal was partly allowed by the First AppellateCourt. revn-356.04.odt7(IV)Fine amount paid, if any, be forfeited to theGovernment.(V)Surety stands discharged, and surety bondsstand cancelled.(VI)Record and Proceedings be returned to thetrial Court. [ S.G. MEHARE, J. ]asb/JULY24