Home > 498A, Judgments > Bombay High Court- complaint itself made about one-and-half month after the incident. 498a, 306 and 176 IPC is fabricated, 5 people acquitted from PUNE

Bombay High Court- complaint itself made about one-and-half month after the incident. 498a, 306 and 176 IPC is fabricated, 5 people acquitted from PUNE



Dnyaneshwar Laxman Dhoble
Age 29 years,
Occ: Agriculturist,
r/o Pargaon (Shingwe),
Taluka Ambegaon,
District: Pune. …. Applicant
– Versus –
1. Kisan Dattatray Shinde,
Age 23 years, Occ: Agri.
2. Dattatraya Rangnath Shinde,
Age 55 years, Occ: Agri.
3. Babaji Dattatraya Shinde,
Age 50 years, Occ: Agri.
4. Sou. Sunderabai Datatraya
Shinde, Age 50 years,
Occ: Agri.
5. Sou. Sakhubai Babaji Shinde,
Age 23 years, Occ: Agri.
All residing at Pimparkhed,
Taluka Shirur, Dist. Pune.
6. State of Maharashtra …. Respondents
Shri U.B. Nighot for the Applicant.
S/Shri M.S. Mohite with A.R. Kapadnis
for Respondent Nos.1 to 5.
Ms Rajeshree Gadhvi, Additional Public
Prosecutor, for the State.
Page 1 of 3REVN-OJ-133.2001


This revision is directed against acquittal of the respondents by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code. The revision has been filed by the victim s brother who had given a report to the police on 27-10-1999,
after the victim s accidental death on 8-9-1999. The victim was married to respondent No.1, who is the victim s cousin, on 31-5-1998.
Only two witnesses were examined at the trial. PW-1 is the applicant and PW-2-Gorakh is a neighbour who did not support the prosecution.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor incharge of the case informed the trial Court that the victim s father and other brothers were not supporting the case of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that there are statements of those witnesses on the record which show that they had stated about the victim s ill- treatment. But there is nothing unusual about
the prosecutor in-charge of the case questioning the witnesses and declining to
examine them before the Court on finding that the they are not likely to support the prosecution. The applicant s evidence was not believed by the learned trial Judge, first, because the complaint itself was made about one-and-half month after the incident. Secondly, the neighbour, who was examined as
PW-2, had not supported the case of illtreatment, and lastly, the learned Judge found that it was perfectly possible that the victim could have accidentally fallen in the well as there was no parapet wall. Since the view taken by the learned Judge cannot be said to be perverse or improbable, it does not call for
any interference in revisional jurisdiction.

The revision is, therefore, dismissed.


Categories: 498A, Judgments Tags:
  1. Sandesh
    March 12, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Nice. Lage raho 🙂

  2. Mahesh Deshmukh
    March 21, 2012 at 7:48 am

    Excellent lesson for false complainer by HC …..

  3. 498agladiator
    March 21, 2012 at 12:14 pm

    And to add my case for transfering the case from Akola to Pune is with same Hon’ble Judge.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Fight for Justice

A crusaders blog for inspiring thought.

Stand up for your rights

Gender biased laws

MyNation Foundation - News

News Articles from MyNation, india - News you can use

498afighthard's Blog

Raising Awareness About Gender Biased Laws and its misuse In India

The WordPress.com Blog

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

%d bloggers like this: