Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2413 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Vikas Ganpatrao Sonar

2013-11-27

P.N.DESHMUKH, P.V.HARDAS

body2013
JUDGMENT P.V. HARDAS, J. 1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant - State questioning the correctness of the judgment of 15th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune, dated 31/7/2004 in Sessions Case No. 3 of 2003 acquitting the respondent-accused for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC. 2. Facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus: PW 6 - PI Rajendra Shelke, who was attached to the Dattawadi Police Out-post on 24/10/2002, was informed by one police constable about the receipt of information from the Harjeevan Hospital about admission of one lady with bums. Accordingly, PW 6 - PI Shelke directed Constable Salunke to record the statement of the victim and also to get her statement recorded by a Magistrate. Accordingly, a requisition was issued to the Special Judicial Magistrate for recording the statement of injured - Vidya. The said communication is at Exh. 48. Thereafter, PW 6 - PI Shelke visited the Hatjeevan Hospital and contacted the doctor in order to verify if injured was in a fit condition to give her statement. The Medical Officer examined the injured and opined that she was in a fit state of mind to give her statement. Accordingly, the statement of Vidya was recorded in the presence of the Medical Officer at Exh. 15. The aforesaid statement was read over to Vidya and Vidya admitted the contents to have been correctly recorded. On the basis of the statement of Vidya at Exh. 15, an offence vide Crime No. 245 of 2002 was registered under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC against the respondent-accused. PW 6 - PI Shelke thereafter proceeded to the scene of the incident and in the presence of the panch witnesses drew the scene of the incident panchanama at Exh. 46. From the scene of the incident, one saree, one tea cup and one matchbox came to be seized. The aforesaid articles seized from the scene of the incident are Articles 1 to 3. On 25/10/2002 the respondent-accused was arrested under arrest panchanama at Exh 49. Thereafter statements of the witnesses were recorded and further to the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the respondent was submitted. On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. On 25/10/2002 the respondent-accused was arrested under arrest panchanama at Exh 49. Thereafter statements of the witnesses were recorded and further to the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet against the respondent was submitted. On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, trial court vide Exh. 3 framed charge against the respondent for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 307 of the IPC. The respondent denied his guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution, in support of its case, examined 7 witnesses. The defence of the respondent-accused was of denial. The trial court, upon appreciation of the evidence, acquitted the respondent for the aforesaid offences. The appellant - State being aggrieved by the acquittal, has filed the present appeal. 3. Prosecution has examined PW-1 - Vidya, who deposes that she had been married earlier and after obtaining a divorce by mutual consent from her first husband, she had married the respondent. According to PW 1 Vidya, the respondent was also married earlier. PW-1 - Vidya has not stated that the respondent had obtained divorce from his previous wife. According to PW 1 - Vidya, she began to reside with the respondent, but the respondent used to ill-treat her and used to demand that Vidya should bring money from her parents. According to Vidya, on the day of the incident, the respondent had returned home and thereafter had poured kerosene and had set her ablaze. According to PW 1 - Vidya, the respondent thereafter fled from the scene of the incident. Vidya, thereafter, went to the Harjeevan Hospital, where she was admitted and her statement was recorded. In cross-examination, PW-1 - Vidya has admitted as true that while going towards the Harjeevan Hospital, Dattawadi Police Outpost is on way. Admittedly, Vidya had not gone to the police station for lodging a report. Omission has also been duly proved that Vidya had not stated in her previous statement that on the day of the incident, the accused had returned home from work at about 1 p.m. and had assaulted her. Admittedly, Vidya had not gone to the police station for lodging a report. Omission has also been duly proved that Vidya had not stated in her previous statement that on the day of the incident, the accused had returned home from work at about 1 p.m. and had assaulted her. It was also not stated by her in her previous statement that the accused thereafter had left for work and had returned again at 2 p.m. An omission has also been duly proved that Vidya had not stated that at about 2.30 p.m., while she was doing her routine work in the house, the respondent had poured kerosene on her and had thrown a burning matchstick and Viday realized about this when her clothes caught fire. An omission has also been duly proved that Vidya had not stated that the accused had left the house after closing the door. An omission has also been elicited in respect of Vidya not stating in her report about informing her parents. Vidya has further admitted that till she had reached the hospital, she had not lodged any report. She has further admitted that when she was taken on the ground floor of the house for going to the hospital, the police had arrived and she claims to have narrated the incident to the police. However, the aforesaid fact is not supported by the police. Thus it is clear that despite several chances being available to PW 1 - Vidya, Vidya had not narrated the incident to the police, particularly about the respondent setting her ablaze. In further cross-examination of PW 1 - Vidya, it has been elicited that Vidya does not know if the respondent had obtained divorce from his earlier wife. 4. The defence of the respondent is that his marriage with his first wife was subsisting and consequently Vidya cannot be said to be a ''wife'' within the meaning of Section 498A. The trial court has accepted the evidence led by the respondent-accused and come to the conclusion that since the first marriage of the respondent was subsisting, respondent cannot be said to be husband of PW 1 - Vidya nor can Vidya be said to be the wife of the respondent accused. The trial court ultimately came to the conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC had been proved. 5. The trial court ultimately came to the conclusion that no offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC had been proved. 5. In respect of the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, the trial court came to the conclusion that the report lodged by Vidya was a belated report as Vidya had several opportunities of disclosing the incident to the police. The false implication of the respondent - accused could not be ruled out. The trial court, therefore, gave the benefit of doubt to the respondent-accused and acquitted him. 6. With the assistance of the learned APP, we have perused the findings recorded by the trial court. The view taken by the trial court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. No perversity has been pointed out to us in the reasoning of the trial court. Merely because another view of the evidence is possible is not a ground to interfere with the order of acquittal. In any event, according to us, the view taken by the trial court is the only view that is possible in the face of the evidence on record. We, thus, do not notice any merit in the present appeal and the present appeal is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 7. Before parting with this appeal, we find that Criminal Application No.1574 of 2013 has been filed by the respondent as well as PW 1 - Vidya. It appears that the dispute between the respondent-accused and PW 1 - Vidya has been amicably settled and certain settlement terms have been arrived at in the Family Court. Accordingly, affidavits of the parties have been tendered in this court in the present appeal evidencing the settlement arrived at between the parties. We, therefore, take those affidavits on record. 8. As observed by us, since there is no merit in the present appeal, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the acquittal of the respondent. Appeal dismissed.