STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMESH RAGHAVJI SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, the State has impugned the order dated-27th January 1987 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune acquitting all the accused of the offences punishable under section489a read with 34 of the INdian Penal Code, 1860 (I. P. C. for short) and acquitting accused No. 1 Ramesh Shah of the offence under section307 of I. P. C. The learned trial Judge has based his order of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution evidence on record is insufficient, discrepant and not credible enough to bring home the guilt to the accused. All the accused have been charged under section498a read with section34 of I. P. C. while accused No. 1 husband of the victim, has been separately charged under section307 of I. P. C.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the prosecution case is that : The complainant Smt. Rashila Shah married the accused No. 1 Ramesh Shah in the year 1983. After the marriage, the complainant stayed in the matrimonial house with the accused persons. For some time, her married life was happy but thereafter marital relations soured up. There were allegations of ill treatment of the complainant at the hands of the accused and also demands for Maruti Car, gold locket and diamond ring from the parents of the complainant. The harassment went on for 11/2 year i. e. till the complainant was forced to leave the matrimonial home and to live with her parents. Judicial proceedings were instituted by accused No. 1 against complainant wife Rashila. However, through intervention and good offices of Oswal Chovisi Mahajan, a conciliation was brought about and the complainant was returned back to the matrimonial home on condition that she will not visit to her parental house at Bombay. However, the complainant alleged that she was again subjected to ill treatment and beating and there were renewed demands for Maruti Car, gold locket, diamond ring, etc.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge in an elaborate order,while observing that the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution sought to bring the case under explanation (b) to section498a of I. P. C. , held the same to be unsubstantiated and disbelieved the case of the complainant of demand of dowry or demand for Maruti Car,gold locket, diamond ring etc, by accused on the ground that evidence was insufficient, discrepant, not credible and suffered from improvements. THE learned trial judge has disbelieved the allegation that the complainant was required to do household chores like cleaning of utensils the whole of the day since there was a maidservant in the matrimonial home and further the so called ill treatment of the complainant referred to by her in her testimony before the court does not find place in the complaint Exh. 10 In view thereof, the learned trial Judge held that no case under section498a explanation (b) of I. P. C. was made out.