Latest News
Back
Document:
The Proceedings of the Trial Court Cannot be held Invalid in the Case of Lack of Evidence
High Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v/s Milind Shalikrao Waghmare and Ors. Stated that the order of the Trial Court cannot be interfered with if the order of the acquittal is given due to contradictory and exaggerated evidence.
Facts of the Case:
In the given case of State of Maharashtra v/s Milind Shalikrao Waghmare and Ors., The Complaint was filed by the Complainant for harassment of the diseased and for demanding Dowry. The marriage was consummated between Sapna (hereinafter referred to as the diseased) and the Respondent Milind Waghmare in 1996 and they had two children.
Later, according to the Complainant, the accused started harassing the diseased by demanding the dowry and started ill-treating her. During the delivery of the children, the disease was forced to pay an entire amount of the delivery expenses.
The Complainant in its statement stated that the accused kept asking for money from the diseased and the complainant and harassed and ill-treated the diseased if such amount was not given.
On 21st January 2002, the diseased took her own life by hanging herself and the Complainant lodged three reports with the police on the same day.
The third report was converted into the FIR and the investigation by the Police begun. The Police Investigated the scene and prepared the Spot Panchanama. Also, in the Post Mortem report, the doctors stated the probable cause of death was Aphelexia caused by Hanging.
Under Sections, 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the Crime was registered by the police, and the accused was arrested for the same.The police after completing the investigation filed the charge sheet before the J.M.F.C Chandrapur but the case was turned over to the Sessions Court as the offenses falling under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are to be tried by the Court of Sessions.
The Sessions Court framed charged against the accused but the accused pleaded not guilty and prayed for the trial.
In his defense, the Accused stated that the diseased was a very hot-tempered person and always took drastic measures in presence of such an angry state of mind.
The Accused also denied the fact that they have asked for the money from the diseased and the complainant and stated that neither have they ever treated the diseased wrongly or have harassed her.
Hearing all the sides the Session Court acquitted the accused and freed him from all charges filed against him.
Being aggrieved by the decision of the Sessions Court, the Appeal was filed before the High Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, by the State.
Before the High Court, it was mentioned by the Public Prosecutor appearing for the Appellant that the unfortunate event of suicide of the diseased occurred within the 7 years of the marriage and the medical evidence supports the side of the prosecution case. It was also stated by the Appellant side that there were witnesses to support the case in the same matter.
Therefore, it was prayed by the Appellants that the decision of the Trial court was to be declared invalid.
However, it was presented in the defense of the Accused that, As per Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, the husband and the relatives who are charged are subjected the wife to cruelty is a necessary ingredient for the presumption of suicide by married woman, for which no strong evidence was given by the Appellants.
Also, the evidence given by the Complainant and other witnesses was self-confusing, contradictory, and exaggerated. There was no proof found the money or Dowry was demanded by the Accused from the Appellant party.
Judgment:
However, after hearing the sides to the Case the High court gave its Judgment stating,
"The High Court of Bombay Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, declared the evidence given by the Complainant and the other witnesses in the favour of the Appellant is contradicting and full of omission.The prosecution has no sufficient evidence for proving the charges of the cruelty and therefore has failed to prove the same.
There is the presumption of innocence in the side of the Accused and the same is backed by the decision of the Trial court.The decision of the Trial Court, cannot be declared as invalid or void in the cases of absence of sufficient evidence."
Therefore, the Appeal is dismissed.
Document:
