LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-345

RAJENDRA VIRAPPA TELIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On December 10, 2021
Rajendra Virappa Telia Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this Appeal, the Appellant - Accused No.1 is challenging the judgment and order dtd. 24/2/1998 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge at Gandhinglaj in Sessions Case No.17/1997. By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 306 and 498-A of IPC. Under Sec. 498-A of IPC, the Appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for one year with fine and under Sec. 306 of IPC, the Appellant has been sentenced to suffer imprisonment for two years with fine. The Appellant however has been acquitted of the offence punishable under Sec. 304-B of IPC. Mrs. Hirabai Teli who is the mother of the Appellant and who was Accused No.2 has been acquitted of all the offences as charged.

(2.) The prosecution case may be briefly stated thusThat Complainant Mallappa Kabbure (P.W.1) is the brother of deceased Mahananda who was married to the Appellant in the year 1992 at Village Gargoti, District Kolhapur. At the time of marriage, the Appellant was serving as a Peon at Ghali College at Gandhinglaj and as a driver with Dr. Ghali. According to the prosecution, deceased Mahananda was mentally and physically ill-treated by the Appellant and his mother on account of the fact that deceased had delivered two daughters and further on the ground of non satisfaction of the demand of money from her brother.

(3.) In the year 1994, the Complainant (P.W.1) received an anonymous letter informing that the deceased was ill-treated by the Appellant and she be taken to her maternal house. Upon receipt of the said letter, Complainant alongwith Manohar Phale (P.W.4) and one Shrikant Teli visited the house of the Appellant at Gandhinglaj with Mr. Vishwanath P. Shetty of Ghandinglaj. After visiting the house of the Appellant, P.W.1 noticed that deceased was weeping and had allegedly told the Complainant that she was beaten by the Appellant on account of their financial condition and the fact that she delivered daughters. The Complainant tried to persuade the Appellant not to harass the deceased. After the aforesaid incident, the deceased was taken to her maternal house for her third delivery, when she delivered a male child. The Appellant and his mother attended the naming ceremony and after the deceased returned to her matrimonial house, she was continued to be ill-treated by the Appellant.