STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. CHAGAN KANNU BANKAR
LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-243
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on March 25,2016

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Appellant
VERSUS
Chagan Kannu Bankar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) By this appeal, the appellant-State is challenging the judgment and order passed by the learned 5th Jt. J.M.F.C., Ulhasnagar on 19th November, 1998 in Regular Criminal Case No.135/1998 thereby acquitting the respondent/accused for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
(2.) Facts leading to the institution of the present appeal can be summarized thus :- (a) The respondent/accused Chhagan Bankar married informant Chandabai Chhagan Bankar on 16th March, 1997. Thereafter, informant Chanda started co-habiting with the respondent/accused at Village Rahtoli, Taluka Ulhasnagar, District Thane. According to the prosecution case, after initial nice treatment for four months, married life of Chanda had seen rough weather. Her husband Chhagan started subjecting her to cruelty by asking her to bring golden necklace from her mother. She was reached to her maternal house thereafter. When she returned to her matrimonial home after stay of eight months with her parents, the accused again subjected her to cruelty by assaulting her. Thereafter, informant Chanda was again required to take shelter at her parental home. Then, she was again reached to her matrimonial house. Thereafter, her husband Chhagan questioned her as to why she had not brought an amount of Rs.10,000/- from her father. Then accused is stated to have assaulted Chandabai. Fed-up with the constant ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of her husband/accused, Chanda lodged report against her husband on 30th April, 1998 resulting in registration of crime No.I-6/1998 against the respondent/accused at Kulgaon police station, Badlapur, Taluka Ulhasnagar, District Thane. In pursuance to the investigation of the said offence, charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused and ultimately Regular Criminal Case No.135/1998 was registered against him. (b) Charge for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondent/accused, who pleaded not guilty. In support of the charge, the prosecution has examined in all five witnesses. Neibhourer Vishnu Ramchandra Pawar came to be examined as PW1 at Exhibit-7. Informant Chanda Bankar was examined PW2 at Exhibit-8. Report lodged by her is at Exhibit-9. Father of Chanda, Motiram Daji Mhase came to be examined as PW3 at Exhibit-13. Investigating Officer Madhukar Dhiga Patil was examined as PW4 at Exhibit-15. Medical Officer Dr. Bhausaheb Shankar Bhondve was examined as PW5 at Exhibit-17 and medical certificate issued by him is at Exhibit-18. (c) After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and order the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that evidence on record does not show that accused has subjected the informant to cruelty and, therefore, he came to be acquitted.
(3.) Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. She vehemently argued that the evidence of informant Chanda coupled with that of her father PW3 Motiram as well as the evidence of the Medical Officer PW5 Bhausaheb Bhondve is sufficient to hold that the informant was subjected to cruelty by her husband and, therefore, the learned trial Court erred in acquitting the accused.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.