GANESH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 4th November, 1999 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katol, in Regular Criminal Case No. 44 of 1998, by which the appellant Ganesh was convicted of offence punishable under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, and the Judgment and Order dated 7th November, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-4, Nagpur, in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 1999, dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirming the said conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court, the present Revision was filed by the Revision Applicant.

(2.) In support of the Revision Application, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the conviction was recorded by the learned Trial Judge on the sole testimony of Rashmi [PW 1], wife of the applicant. Both the applicant as well as his wife have been working as Zilla Parishad Teachers. There is a son begotten out of the wedlock. The Trial Judge ignored the inconsistencies in the evidence of a single testimony and inconsistencies were of material nature. She then submitted that Rashmi [PW 1] was obviously an interested witness. But then, her evidence is not corroborated by any other witness and the evidence about the demand of a television and Rs.50,000-00 is vague and she admitted in the cross-examination about she being not sure of the time and date when the demand was allegedly made. Not only that the letter [Exh.16], that was relied by the prosecution, did not have a mention of even a word that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was demanded by the accused and that was the letter allegedly sent by her first in point of time. In the FIR also, the mention of Rs. 50,000/-, if seen carefully, is made in a most casual manner and it appears, according to her, that the husband and wife were quarreling. But then, the ingredients of offence under Section 498-A were not attracted. She, therefore, submitted that there is a perversity on the part of the courts below in the matter of appreciation of evidence which amounts to error of jurisdiction and, therefore, she prayed for acquittal.

(3.) Per contra, learned APP supported the impugned Judgments and Orders of conviction, and submitted that no woman in the Indian society would file a complaint with the police making false allegations against her husband. He then submitted that concurrently, the courts below have found the testimony of Rashmi [PW 1] to be trustworthy and there is no reason why this Court should show interference with the concurrent finding of fact. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the Revision Application.