MAYABAI GAJANAN WAGH Vs. GAJANAN MADHUKAR WAGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant had lodged first information report with the police relating to dowry demand as also ill-treatment under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed for offences under sections 498-A, 504 and 506 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution had examined six witnesses in support of the charges. The trial Court vide judgment dated 17-4-1998 acquitted the accused, viz. respondents No. 1 to 4 of the said charges. The said acquittal has been challenged in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

(2.) THE learned Senior Advocate for the applicant argued at length. The main submissions made by learned Senior Advocate are-

(3.) IN respect of delay in filing the first information report, it was urged before me that the trial Court has not taken the same into consideration while ordering acquittal, but the delay has been satisfactorily explained inasmuch as brother of the applicant had expired on 18-5-1996 and the applicant was also ill on account of injuries suffered by her due to ill-treatment by respondents No. 1 to 4. In this respect, reliance has been placed on (Ram Murti and another v. State of Haryana), A. I. R. 1976 S. C. 2455 and (State of Himachal Pradesh v. Gian Chand), 2001 (3) SCALE 565. It was also pointed out by learned Senior Counsel that though the case of the respondents No. 1 to 4 in their statement under section 313 of Cri. P. C. is that the applicant had, on her own, left the marital home, yet no suggestion in respect of this was given by the accused to any of the prosecution witnesses. According to learned Senior Advocate, the statement of the complainant/applicant with the attending circumstances on record is sufficient to set aside the order of acquittal in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court and the matter is required to be sent for re-trial. In this respect, reliance is placed on (K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of A. P.), A. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1788, and (Akalu Ahir and others v. Ramdeo Ram), A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 2145.