RAMESH S/O. SOPANRAO NAIKWADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:42060


                                                                              326.19revn
                                                   (1)

                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                  BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                      929 CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 326 OF 2019

                               RAMESH S/O. SOPANRAO NAIKWADE
                                            VERSUS
                                 THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                  …..

                 Mr M. D. Shinde, Advocate for Applicant
                 Mr V. M. Lomte, APP for Respondent/State
                                                …..

                                           CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.

                                             DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026

                 P. C. :


                 1.           The applicant is challenging the judgment and order dated

                 12/11/2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in

                 Criminal Appeal No.66/2014, wherein, the said appeal came to be

                 dismissed.   In the said appeal, the applicant had challenged the

                 judgment and order dated 21/04/2014, passed by the learned Judicial

                 Magistrate First Class, Jintur in R.C.C. No.83/2009, wherein applicant

                 came to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 498(A) of

                 the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer simple

                 imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to

                 pay fine, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
                                                               326.19revn
                                   (2)

2.             The applicant is husband of informant Mandabai Ramesh

Naikwade.       The complaint was lodged by the informant on

21/02/2009, alleging that she got married with applicant prior to 16

years ago and out of said wedlock, gave birth to five daughters.

According to her, applicant/husband was suspecting her character and

on that ground, there was quarrel between them.           There is also

allegation of mental and physical harassment to her by applicant on

account of giving birth to female children. The informant is working

in the Women Economic Development Board, Parbhani on the post of

a Labour. The applicant/husband asked her to leave the job. Since

informant gave birth to five female child, there was ill-treatment to

her, and therefore, she lodged complaint to the Jintur Police Station for

offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 323, 506 read with Section

34 of the Indian Penal Code. Vide Exhibit 12, charge came to be

framed against the accused persons including applicant.            After

recording evidence, learned JMFC convicted the applicant for offence

punishable under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced as aforementioned. Subsequently, appeal of the applicant

came to be dismissed by the learned Sessions Court. Therefore, the

applicant has approached this Court by filing criminal revision

application.
                                                                 326.19revn
                                     (3)

3.          This Court vide order dated 21/11/2019, suspended the

substantive sentence imposed upon the applicant by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jintur, as well as the learned Sessions

Judge, Parbhani.


4.          Heard learned Advocate Mr Shinde for the applicant and

learned APP Mr Lomte for respondent/State.



5.          Mr Shinde, learned Advocate for applicant submits that

the prosecution has failed to establish its case against applicant and

virtually failed to prove it beyond reasonable doubts.         He further

submits that the witnesses have not corroborated to each other and

there is no independent witness came to be examined by the

prosecution in order to prove its case. According to him, marriage

between informant and applicant took place prior to 16 years of

incident, and after so much period, there cannot be said to have any

harassment meted out at the hands of applicant to informant/wife when

three daughters had already become major. He then submits that the

said daughters have not been examined by the prosecution in support

of   testimony     of   PW-1/wife.         Therefore,   he   submits   that

evidence adduced by the prosecution before the learned Trial Court is
                                                             326.19revn
                                  (4)

wholly insufficient to attract the provisions of Section 498(A) of the

IPC.


6.          Per contra, learned APP Mr Lomte strongly opposes this

revision application. According to him, the prosecution has rightly

established offence against accused before the learned Trial Court as

well as before the Appellate Court. The testimonies of witnesses have

been considered by the Trial Courts in proper perspective. Both the

judgment and orders passed by the learned Subordinate Courts are fair

and reasonable and have been passed after proper appreciation of

evidence. Therefore, according to him, no interference is warranted by

this Court particularly since the powers under Section 397 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure are limited in scope. He, therefore, prays for

dismissing this criminal revision application.



7.          After hearing learned Advocates for the respective parties

and going through the record, it is clear that the applicant came to be

convicted for offence punishable under Section 498(A) of the IPC. It

is an undisputed fact that the report was lodged by the informant/wife

after a period of sixteen years of marriage and after having five

children, is not disputed.    Learned Trial Court has given undue

weightage to the testimony of the informant/wife.      Informant/wife
                                                               326.19revn
                                   (5)

stated to be working in the Government Department, whereas the

applicant/husband stated to be jobless. There is evidence that there

was quarrel between husband and wife on account of character of

informant/wife and that the informant had given birth to five female

child. The applicant is jobless.



8.           The aforesaid aspects, if testimony of the witnesses have

been perused, it is discernible that the evidence of the said witnesses

does not inspire confidence, so as to attract provisions of Section

498(A) of the IPC, thereby holding the applicant/husband guilty.

Hence, this Court is of the opinion that, learned Trial Courts have

failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective and thus, the

conviction of the applicant cannot be sustained.        As regards the

objection raised by learned APP that the revisional powers under

Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are limited, this Court

is of the opinion that when a patent illegality or perversity is apparent

in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Courts, this Court is well

within its jurisdiction to interfere. In that view of the matter, this

revision application deserves to be allowed.        Hence, I pass the

following order :-
                                                           326.19revn
                                 (6)

                              ORDER

(I)    The Criminal Revision Application is allowed.

(II)   The judgment and order dated 21/04/2014, passed by the learned

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jintur in R.C.C. No.83/2009 and the

judgment and order dated 12/11/2019, passed by the learned Sessions

Judge, Parbhani in Criminal Appeal No.66/2014, are hereby quashed

and set aside.

(III) The applicant/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable

under Section 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

(IV) The bail bonds executed by the applicant, if any, shall stand

cancelled. The fine amount, if already deposited by the applicant

before the lower Court, is directed to be refunded to him upon proper

verification.



                                   [SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.]
sjk