SANTOSHKUMAR SURAJBHAN GOYAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal fled under Sec. 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Appellant (hereinafter referred to as the accused) has challenged the judgment and order dated 18/07/2003 in Session Case No.418 of 2002 . By the impugned judgment the learned 5th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, has held the accused guilty of ofence punishable under Sec. 417 of the IPC and sentenced him to pay Rs.60,000.00 i/d. rigorous imprisonment for three months. Out of the said fne amount, a sum of Rs.40,000.00 is ordered to be paid to the prosecutrix as compensation.

(2.) The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as under:- The prosecutrix is a married woman with a child. Her husband met with an accident and was admitted in Ruby Hall clinic. After his discharge from the hospital his parents took him to their village Mauje Bandi, District-Washim. The prosecutrix kept her daughter with her parents and started residing at Alandi with her brother. She was in search of job and one Ashok Lodha, friend of her husband took her to the ofce of the accused, who is a chartered accountant, and requested him to employ the prosecutrix. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused had refused to ofer any job to the prosecutrix as she had studied only upto 7th standard. However, on the next day he called her to the ofce and made enquiries about her family background. He also told her that his frst wife had expired and that the second wife had fled a petition for divorce. The accused told her that he was unhappy in his marital life and suggested that they could fulfll the needs of each other.

(3.) It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused promised to marry the prosecutrix and ofered to give her a fat and maintain her and her daughter. The prosecutrix therefore agreed to solemnise the marriage. Accordingly, the accused took the prosecutrix to a temple and solemnised the marriage and established physical relationship with her. The grievance of the prosecutrix is that from March-2002 the accused removed her from service, failed to pay the rent of the premises, declined to purchase a fat and discontinued the relationship with her. She therefore lodged a complaint on 07/05/2002. Pursuant to which Crime No.67 of 2002 was registered at Samarth Police Station for ofences punishable under Sections 376 and 420 of the IPC. Crime was investigated by PW13-PSI Sucheta Khokale. She recorded the statement of witnesses, conducted panchanama, seized incriminating material and after completion of the investigation fled a charge sheet.