PADMAKAR UTAMRAO MEHNGE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 06/10/2005 passed by 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akola in Regular Criminal Case No. 1095 of 2004 and confirmed in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2005 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola on 01/4/2009 by which the conviction was recorded by the learned trial Court sentencing the applicant to undergo simple imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/ - for the offence punishable under Sec. 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code, simple imprisonment for six months and to pay fine of Rs. 100/ - each for the offences punishable under Ss. 323 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code, and in default to pay fine amount, to suffer S.I. for fifteen days for each offence, the present revision application was filed by the revision applicant.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the revision -applicant submitted that the judgment and order recorded by the learned trial judge convicting the applicant for the offence punishable under Sec. 498 -A of the Indian Penal Code is perverse and is based on vague evidence. She, further submitted that wife of the applicant had filed FIR against the applicant when he was staying at Panvel and was running Vadapav stall there. On her report, at that time, offence punishable under Sec. 307 of I.P.C. was registered against the applicant, wherein, eventually, he was acquitted on 19/4/2003 by the Sessions Court at Alibagh. Thereafter, there was no appeal preferred by the State or complainant Surekha. Learned Counsel for the applicant further submitted that applicant's wife deserted the applicant and married with one Dadarao. She also filed report against Dadarao of the same nature about ill -treatment, etc. She then submitted that presently the wife of applicant is residing with Dadarao. Learned Counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that the applicant has re -married, he is residing with his second wife and one son and working as agricultural labour at Jawla. She then took me through the evidence of P.W. -1 Surekha, P.W. -2 Prakash and P.W -4 Anita on the basis of whose evidence, conviction was recorded by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Sec. 498 -A of I.P.C. She also invited my attention to the fact that all the family members of the revision -applicant were prosecuted and charge -sheeted in the present offence but the appellate Court acquitted all of them except convicting the revision -applicant. According to her, wife of the applicant, therefore wanted to hound the family members including the applicant. She, therefore, prayed for acquittal by reversing the order of conviction passed by the Courts below.

(3.) Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the revision application and submitted that there is no jurisdictional error committed by the Courts below in recording the order of conviction and, therefore, there is no need to interfere in the order of conviction and sentence awarded to the revision -applicant.