STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAGANNATH SANTRAM AVAGHADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated 4th January, 1988 by which the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dahiwadi in Regular Criminal Case No.135 of 1985 has acquitted all four respondents-accused. The respondent nos. 1 and 2 alleged to have subjected Parvati-wife of respondent no.1 to cruelty. It is also alleged that the respondents-accused nos.1 and 2 voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the victim and respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 wrongfully restrained her from approaching the police for filing complaint against all the respondents. The respondents were also charged for the offences of criminal intimidation.

(2.) THE prosecution case stated briefly is that respondent no.1 husband of the complainant - Parvati was police constable. Respondent No.3 is his real brother. Respondent No.2 was his keep and respondent no.4 was a truck driver. The complainant and respondent no.1 married 11 years before the alleged incident. They were blessed with three children namely Sharmila, Sunil and Ramesh. When the alleged incident occurred sometime in the year 1985, respondent no.1 was working as police constable at Karad city police station. Before his posting at Karad three months prior to the incident, he was posted at Bhiwandi police station. At Bhiwandi he came in contact with respondent no.2 and since then she was staying with respondent no.1 as his keep. After transfer of respondent no.2 alongwith him at Dahiwadi were the complainant was residing with her children and since then respondent no.2 was residing with the complainant. It is alleged that at the instance of respondent no.2, respondent no.1 started ill treating and occasionally beating the complainant. On 23rd August, 1985 it is alleged that when the complainant was bathing her son Ramesh wordly altercation took place between the complainant and respondent no.1 pursuant to which respondent no.1 assaulted her with kicks and first blows. Next day he brought the parents of complainant from Dahiwadi and forced them to take the complainant alongwith them to their house at Bombale. On 31st August, 1985 the complainant returned to Dahiwadi with her younger sister Nakusa (PW 3). The moment respondent no.1 saw the complainant and her sister he asked them why did she come back and assaulted her with iron bar. It is alleged that beating was continued till midnight and thereafter he caused burn injuries with the iron bar on her left cheek and right wrist. On 1st September, 1985 at about 6.00 p.m., when the complainant was proceeding towards Dahiwadi police station, respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 alleged to have restrained her from proceeding towards police station. She was brought to their house where she was beaten by respondent no.2. They also administered threats of killing to the complainant. Nakusa (PW 3) informed the alleged incident to her parents. It is thereafter the complainant's father came to Vaduj police station and informed the police about the said incident. Vaduj police in turn informed by wireless message to Dahiwadi police station about the alleged incident on 2nd September, 1985, which took steps and recorded the complaint and in pursuance thereof set the investigation in motion. The respondents were charge sheeted for the offences under section 498-A, 326, 341 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "I.P.C."). The charge was framed on 6th August, 1986. The respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the respondents was of total denial. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses which consists of evidence of Parvati (PW 2), Nakusa (PW 3), Dr. Jaiprakash Bhosale. We would like to be satisfied about analysis of the evidence done by the trial court to find out whether the evidence in the case is vitiated by the manifest illegalities or conclusion recorded by the court below which could not have been possibly arrived at by the court acting reasonably and judicially and is, therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse.

(3.) SIMILARLY the Apex Court in Dhana Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh A.I.R. 1996 Supreme Court 2478 in paragraph 11 made following observations :