SURAYA IBRAHIM SHAIKH Vs. IBRAHIM RAHIM SHAIKH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition directed against the judgment of acquittal dated 29-10-1988 in Criminal Case No. 532 of 1986 on the file of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Thane. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned A. P. P. for the second respondent. The first respondent and his Counsel remained absent at the time of hearing.

(2.) THE petitioner is the original complainant and the first respondent is the original accused. They are husband and wife. They were living together. According to the wife, the husband was ill-treating and assaulting her and was pressing her to bring Rs. 10,000/- from her brother. Then it is alleged that on 21-10-1986 at about 7. 00 p. m. the wife filed a complaint before the police. She was examined by the doctor. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused husband for offences under sections 323, 498-A, 342 and 504 I. P. C. The defence of the husband was that he had not committed any such offence. After trial, the learned Magistrate held that the prosecution case is not proved and passed the impugned judgment acquitting the accused. The State has not preferred any appeal against the judgment of acquittal. However, the wife who had lodged the complaint before the police has now come up with this revision application challenging the judgment of acquittal.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner has questioned the correctness and legality of the impugned judgment. It was maintained that there was sufficient evidence to prove the prosecution case. That the reasoning of the learned Magistrate in discarding the prosecution evidence is erroneous and not sustainable in law. It was also submitted that there was no proper investigation by the police and some witnesses were not examined during the investigation. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment be set aside and the case may be remained to the learned Magistrate for re-trial of the accused. On the other hand the learned A. P. P. for State has supported the impugned judgment and it was argued that the scope of revision against an order of acquittal is very limited and that no case is made out for interfering with the impugned order.