LAWS(BOM)-2024-1-226

VASANT SHANKAR KADAM Vs. KAVITA VASANT KADAM

Decided On January 03, 2024
Vasant Shankar Kadam Appellant
V/S
Kavita Vasant Kadam Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner- accused No.1 by this petition challenges the order passed by the trial Court on the application filed by respondent No.2 - State of Maharashtra below exhibit 36 in Special Case No.12 of 2014 with a prayer to collect a blood sample of the petitioner for D.N.A. test. The trial Court by the impugned order dtd. 14/01/2016 has allowed the application.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to carefully peruse the statements of respondent No.1 herein at whose instance the criminal prosecution came to Darshan Patil be initiated. The petitioner herein is the original accused No.1 in C.R. No. 102 of 2014 registered at Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli in respect of the offence alleged by respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A, 494, 496, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 4(1)(u), 6 and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Amendment, 2015.

(3.) It is the allegation of respondent No.1- complainant that she belongs to the Hindu-Mang community which is recognised as a Scheduled Caste. The petitioner belongs to the Maratha community. The petitioner was already married. The petitioner though was a married person, insisted the respondent No.1 to maintain a relationship with him and expressed his desire to marry her. Respondent No.1 initially refused but later for a period of 2 1/2 years maintained a relationship with the petitioner. Thereafter, on 07/01/2014, the petitioner married respondent No.1. It is alleged that some of the relatives of the petitioner as well as of his first wife were present. Respondent No.1 later Darshan Patil conceived. However, the petitioner was insisting that respondent No.1 should abort the child. The petitioner and his first wife abused respondent No.1 and assaulted her as is the accusation. The petitioner and his first wife were after respondent No.1 to undergo an abortion. However, respondent No.1 gave birth to a child on 25/10/2014. The FIR is dtd. 16/09/2014 and the charge-sheet was filed on 30/10/2014.