RAJASHRI SUBHASH KAMBLE Vs. SUBHASH BABANRAO KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

(2.) This is a criminal revision application filed by the original complainant against the respondent challenging the judgment and order passed by the JMFC, Solapur, whereby he acquitted the respondents herein of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. It is an admitted position that the State has not preferred an appeal against the said order.

(3.) Brief facts are that the petitioner-original complainant having got married to respondent no.1 in December 1994 started residing with respondent no.1 at Solapur. Respondent nos.3 and 4 are the in-laws of the petitioner and respondent nos.2 and 5 are the brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the petitioner. The prosecution case is that the petitioner resided at the matrimonial house from December 1994 to August 1995 and thereafter, left forcefully matrimonial house and thereafter, she started residing with her parents at Ahmednagar. A complaint was filed by her dated 9.3.96 in which she alleged that respondent nos.1 and 6 had demanded dowry of Rs.1 lakh for the purpose of purchasing T.V. set, Washing Machine and Telephone and because the demand was not met, all the accused harassed her both physically and mentally and as such, had committed an offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 149 of the IPC. Chargesheet was filed against the accused and the prosecution examined the petitioner, her parents and other witnesses in support of its case. The prosecution also examined accused defence witnesses. The trial Court after going through the evidence on record held that there was delay in filing the FIR and further after appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that there were several inconsistencies found in the version given by the petitioner herein and other witnesses viz. her father and mother and therefore, did not accept the version of the petitioner of demand of dowry and ill-treatment at the hands of respondent nos.1 to 5. The trial court also took into consideration the letters which were written by the petitioner to her mother in which she had not mentioned the incidence which were alleged by her in the FIR and in her evidence. The trial Court also after appreciating the evidence on record has come to the conclusion that there were inconsistency in the version of PW 2 in the FIR and in the evidence. Further, the trial Court has taken into consideration the letters which were written by the petitioner to respondent no.1 in which she has stated that she had reached Ahmednagar safely. This letter was written on 16.8.95 which letter itself according to the trial court showed that the story and allegation of the petitioner that she was dragged out of the house by the accused, was doubtful. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 149 of the IPC.