SOPAN Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision is filed to challenge the judgment and order of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Karjat, District Ahmednagar, delivered in R.C.C. No. 279/1986. The petitioner is convicted and sentenced for the offence punishable under section 498A of Indian Penal Code. This decision is confirmed by the Sessions Court, Ahmednagar in Criminal Appeal No. 43/1995. Both the sides are heard. This Court has perused the original record. The original complainant Nandabai is the wife of petitioner. She was given in marriage to the petitioner in the year 1981 or 1982. It is her case that the husband used to ask her to give divorce as he wanted to marry second wife. It is her case that the husband was demanding Rs. 5000/- and one tola gold from her parents. It is her case that as these demands were not met with, the husband used to give her beating and ultimately in March 1986 due to aforesaid reasons, she was driven out of matrimonial house by the petitioner, husband. It is her case that in May 1986, the husband married second wife. The second wife was also made accused in this case. The in-laws were also made accused. On the basis of report given on 17.11.1986, crime was registered in Karjat Police Station for offences punishable under sections 498A, 494 and 34 of I.P.C.

(2.) During investigation, police recorded statements of relatives of wife and filed the chargesheet for aforesaid offences. For proving the offences, prosecution examined four witnesses before J.M.F.C. The J.M.F.C. has believed all the witnesses and held that there was 'cruelty' as defined under section 498 of I.P.C.

(3.) The complainant Nandabai (PW 1) has given evidence that the ill-treatment was started to her after one and half months of the marriage. She has given evidence that her husband and her in-laws used to give beating to her. She has given evidence that they used to ask her to bring Rs. 5000/- and one tola gold ring from her parents. She has deposed that as her parents are poor, they could not meet this demand. She has described the ill-treatment given to her by saying that the accused used to give beating to her, they used to starve her and they used to harass her. She has given evidence that accused No. 1 husband, then married second wife. As there was the ill-treatment, she gave report. The report at Exh. 31 is proved in her evidence. It appears that the English version of deposition is not correct as the translation is not correctly made. This Court has perused the Marathi versions.