MANGAL VITHAL KOYALE Vs. GOPALRAO BHIMRAO KOYALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order passed by the learned Magistrate discloses nothing, but dereliction of duty on his part to such an extent that the order has scandalised this Court. I am extremely unhappy to make observation of such a character against my own Subordinate Judge. But the order passed by the learned Magistrate leaves me no other option.

(2.) The facts are very simple. The present petitioner is the wife on one Vithal, who is the son of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of respondent No. 3. Evidently, she is recently married to Vithal. Her contention is that her in-laws have been torturing her for not bringing any dowry to fill in their coffers. She contends, on 19-2-1983 the three respondents together tried to beat the devil out of her, causing serious injuries to the extent of making her un-conscious. She further contended that after that incident, on 20-2-1983, the three accused took away all her ornaments and drove her away her houses; She had to take shelter at her fathers place at Hanumantwadi and only thereafter she could file a complaint at the Police Station. The three accused were in fact arrested by the police, were produce before the Court and were thereafter released on bail. The Police made investigation, recorded statement of some persons, found enough materials for filing charge-sheet against three accused and in fact, filed the charge-sheet against them. Even the learned magistrate found that there existed enough materials against the accused and for farming a charge against the accused and hence, even charge was farmed by him against them on 13-4-1984. Since the accused placed not guilty and claimed trial, the learned Magistrate directed the trial to proceed.

(3.) The Asst. Public Prosecutor applied for summonses to 9 witnesses, Summonses were ordered to issue and case was posted for hearing on 22-6-1984. On this date, it was found that the witnesses were not present. Application was made for re-issued of summons to them and order to that effect was passed by the learned magistrate. The case was posted for hearing on 23-7-1984. Once again, the witnesses were absent and the summonses were re-issued. The case adjourned for hearing to 23-9-1984. On this date, once again the witnesses were not present. Neither the Asstt. Public Prosecutor nor the learned Magistrate seem to have bothered to enquirer as to why the summonses were not being responded to. All that the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor did was that he repeated his application for re-issuance of summons. The learned Magistrate took objection to such application; but what he did was that believing that the summonses were disobeyed by the witnesses for the prosecution, he passed an order in favour of the accused acquitting all the them.