RUKHAMINABAI VITHALRAO JOGDAND Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a complaint filed by Geeta Bharat Badar, charge-sheet was filed against three accused, who are facing trial under sections 498-A and 313, read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said trial, examination-in-chief and cross-examination partly of the complainant-Geeta Bharat Badar was recorded and on the basis of the same, a notice was issued to the present applicant under section 319, Criminal Procedure Code. The present applicant filed reply raising preliminary objection that on the basis of incomplete examination of complainant Geeta Bharat Badar, action could not be taken under section 319, Criminal Procedure Code. In support of this contention, reliance was placed on (Gulam Mondal v. Nazam Hussain and others), 1987 Cri. L. J. 729, and (Sannarevanappa Bharamajappa Kalal @ Kuncharkar and others v. State of Karnataka), 1991 Cri. L. J. 21. It was also urged in the said reply that the incident had taken place about seven years ago and the Admission Register as well as records are required to be preserved only for periods of five years and three years respectively.

(2.) ACCORDINGLY, the applicant submitted that the trial should be proceeded without joining her as co-accused. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide impugned order, dated 24-3-1998, which is a subject-matter of revision, rejected the contentions of the applicant.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the applicant urged before me that firstly even the deposition of Geeta Bharat Badar, though incomplete, does not show that the applicant had carried out the termination of pregnancy of the said complainant against her wish, and secondly, on the basis of incomplete cross-examination of Geeta Bharat Bardar, action under section 319, Criminal Procedure Code, could not be initiated.