SHEETAL NITIN PATILversusNITIN @ CHANDRAKANT MADHUKAR PATIL AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:10520-DB


                                    1         Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.633 OF 2023


                  Sheetal Nitin Patil,
                  Age : 30 years, Occu.: Household,
                  R/o.: C/o.: Anturli Bk. Tq. Pachora,
                  District : Jalgaon                   ….           APPELLANT
                                                                    (Informant)

                  VERSUS

            1.    Nitin @ Chandrakant Madhukar Patil,
                  Age : years, Occu.: Service,
                  R/o.: Raisoni Nagar, Jalgaon

            2.    Madhukar Gana Patil,
                  Age : years, Occu.: Nil,
                  R/o.: Raisoni Nagar, Jalgaon

            3.    Mangala Madhukar Patil,
                  Age : yeas, Occu.: Household,
                  R/o.: Raisoni Nagar, Jalgaon              ….      RESPONDENTS
                                                                  (Original Accused)

                                             ….
            Mr. Harshal P. Randhir, Advocate for the Appellant
            Mr. Girish V. Wani, Advocate for Respondent No.3
                                             ….

                                  CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                          ABASAHEB D. SHINDE , JJ.

                                  DATED : 09/03/2026.

            JUDGMENT : ( PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )


            1.    The appellant–informant has challenged the acquittal of the

            present respondent–accused in Sessions Case No.47 of 2018 for the
                         2         Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23

offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 324, 504, 506, and

201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge and District Judge–4,

Jalgaon (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Judge”) by

judgment and order dated 04.04.2023 in the said case.



2.     According to the prosecution, the appellant–informant is the

wife   of   respondent No.1,   with whom she             got married   on

15.05.2011. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her brother-in-law and

sister-in-law, respectively. Though the appellant was treated well for

the initial period of three months, but thereafter the respondents

started demanding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- from her for the

purpose of business. As the appellant expressed her inability to

bring the said amount, the respondents started abusing and

assaulting her. They used to threaten her for sending to her

paternal house. Even after the birth of her daughter, Mokshada,

the respondents continued to harass her on the ground that she

had not given birth to a male child.

       Thereafter, on 02.05.2016 at about 8:00 to 8:30 a.m., the

respondents picked up a quarrel with the appellant over petty

reasons. Respondent No.1 poured petrol on the person of the

informant, whereas respondent Nos.2 and 3 instigated him to set
                          3        Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23

her ablaze. Somehow, the informant managed to rescue herself and

ran away and due to fear she went to her paternal house. Even

thereafter, on the next day, the respondents went to the parental

house of the informant and tried to forcibly take her back. In that

attempt, they also assaulted the relatives of the informant.

Accordingly, on 11.05.2016 the informant lodged a report at

Pachora Police Station and consequently the present crime was

registered under the aforesaid sections against the respondents–

accused.

        On completion of investigation, the respondents – accused

were charge-sheeted, but the learned trial judge, after conducting

the trial, acquitted all the respondents – accused from the aforesaid

offence.



3.   Heard learned counsel for the appellant – informant at the

admission stage and also perused the copies of notes of evidence

along with the impugned judgment.



4.   The learned counsel for the appellant – informant vehemently

argued that the learned trial judge has not properly appreciated the

evidence on record and ignored the vital evidence of the informant

as well as medical officer.
                         4         Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23

5.   On going through the material on record in the form of the

impugned judgment as well as the notes of evidence, it is evident

that there are no specific details with respect to the alleged demand

of Rs.5,00,000/-, particularly regarding the day and date of such

demand.       Moreover, the informant has not stated for which

business the said amount was allegedly demanded. Further,

though the informant claimed that respondent No. 1 poured petrol

on her on 02.05.2016 and that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 instigated

him to set her ablaze, there is no supporting evidence on record to

substantiate the said allegation. The Investigating Officer did not

even enter the house of the respondents to ascertain the place of

occurrence.



6.   Further, though it is alleged that Prabhucharan Patil (PW-5),

sustained a fracture injury in the incident dated 03.05.2016, the

evidence of Dr. Nilkanth Narhar Patil (PW-7) is not convincing on

this aspect. He did not record any history to that effect in the

medical certificate (Exhibit-70). He also failed to inform the police

despite being aware that it was a medico-legal case. Moreover, he

did not recollect when he had examined Prabhucharan Patil (PW-5).

On perusal of the said medical certificate, it is evident that neither

the age of the injury nor the weapon by which such injury could
                               5        Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.633-23

have been caused, has been mentioned. Though he maintained the

case papers relating to the said examination, the same were not

handed over to the police. Thus, the admissions given by Dr. Patil

on these aspects definitely give rise to suspicion regarding the

prosecution story.



7.           The most important aspect is that despite the occurrence of

the incidents on 02.05.2016 and 03.05.2016, the FIR was lodged

on 11.05.2016. There is no explanation forthcoming from the

prosecution as to why such a delay of about 7 to 8 days occurred in

lodging the same. In such circumstances and considering the

overall evidence on record, it can safely be inferred that the

prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondents

beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, considering the scope of an

appeal against acquittal, it is not permissible to take a different

view and disturb the judgment based on appreciation of the

material on record merely because another view is possible. Hence,

we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment. As such,

the appeal is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.




( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )             ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )


VS Maind/-