SARANG BALBHIM WAGHMARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision, there is challenge to the Judgment and order dtd. 4/3/2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2024, dismissing the appeal arising out of Judgment and order dtd. 18/1/2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, in Regular Criminal Case No.460 of 2013 convicting revisionist for offence under Ss. 498-A, 377, 354-A(1)(i)(iii) of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) Revisionist was married to respondent no.2 herein on 26-02- 2012 as per customs and rituals. They both proceeded to Shimla Manali for honeymoon and there, respondent no.2 claims that there used to be quarrel on petty counts and husband did not maintain natural sexual relations with her, but compelled her to have oral sex, made her masturbate him and had unnatural sexual intercourse. He also showed her porn videos and forced her to intimate in such manner. It was against her will and wish and by beating her. In the hope of change in behaviour and circumstances by advent of time, she did not report to anyone. However, when it became unbearable, she initially reported it to her mother, who in turn reported to her father, who further apprised and questioned the husband and in- laws. It is case of respondent no.2 wife that, for treatment of husband, her in-laws put up a demand of Rs.5,00,000.00 and harassed her and therefore, she approached Police and lodged report. Based on such report, crime bearing no.144 of 2013 was registered for offence under Ss. 377, 498-A, 354-A(1)(i)(iii), 354-B, 109, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and after conducting and concluding investigation, accused was chargesheeted and made to face trial before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Osmanabad, who permitted leading evidence and on appreciating the same, recorded finding that offence under Ss. 498-A, 377, 354-A(1)(i)(iii) of the IPC was made out and prosecution failed to establish other charges.

(3.) Before this court, learned counsel for revisionist would submit that allegations are false and fabricated. That, there was no medical examination of victim. That, reporting is delayed with an attempt to rope in entire family. That, baseless allegations are made. He submitted that, on same set of evidence, accused no.3 - mother-in- law was acquitted. According to him, entire judgment of trial court is on presumptions and there is no sound foundation or reasoning for accepting the prosecution version. He criticized the judgment of trial Court for failing to consider that no specific dates are quoted and that, accusations of commission offence under Sec. 377 of the IPC are levelled against entire family that too with vindictive attitude. He pointed out that, only evidence of PW1 informant is appreciated by both learned Courts below and directly believed the same and hence, he seeks indulgence.