THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MOHSIN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed by the State against acquittal of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who were arrayed in the trial Court as original accused Nos. 1 and 4. These accused were convicted in Regular Criminal Case No. 337 of 1997 by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Purna vide Judgment dated 8th January 1999. Along with these Respondents-accused, their other family members were also prosecuted but they were acquitted by the trial Court. The Respondents - accused Nos. 1 and 4 had filed Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1999 before the Sessions Judge, Parbhani and they came to be acquitted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani vide Judgment dated 17th August, 2001. In short, the case of the prosecution as was brought, appears to be as follows:

(2.) I have heard learned A.P.P. for State. The learned A.P.P. has taken me through the oral evidence of all the witnesses. He has submitted that the Appellate Court wrongly gave stress on delay in filing of the complaint and that only relatives were examined and there was no independent witness. According to him, in matter like the present one, the evidence could be only of the relatives. He submitted that the Appellate Court erred in acquitting the Respondents on the basis that only making of demand was not cruelty.

(3.) Against this, learned counsel for Respondents-accused supported the Judgment of the Appellate Court and the reasonings recorded by it. Learned counsel for Respondents relied on the case of Nallabothu Ramulu @ Seetharamaiah and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2014 12 SCC 261. Referring to Para 7 of the Judgment, the learned counsel submitted that in a matter of appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence gets strengthened in favour of the accused when the acquittal is recorded by the lower Court and thus merely because another view is possible, the same should not be the reason to interfere with the Judgment. Learned counsel relied on the reasonings recorded by the Appellate Court to submit that the Appeal of the State should be rejected.