Deepak Naik vs State of Goa

Mridula Bhatkar, J.—This Criminal Revision Application is preferred challenging the judgment dated 18/04/2011 in Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2010 and thereby confirming the judgment of conviction dated 29/03/2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Vasco da Gama, Goa. The applicant/accused is charged for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal code. It is the case of the prosecution that applicant/accused and one Pramila Naik got married on 23/12/2005. After marriage she started residing with the applicant/accused and she stayed with him nearly for 4 to 5 months i.e. from 23/12/2005 to 16/05/2006. However, she was subjected to cruelty and harassment, so also there was a demand for dowry and money. She therefore left his house and gave complaint with the police for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The trial proceeded against the applicant/accused and it was concluded in the conviction. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, thereby sentenced the applicant/accused to pay fine of Rs. 3,000/- and to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment, in default of payment of fine to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment.

Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that complainant Pramila Naik was not treating her husband as a husband and she has given admission in her cross-examination to that effect. It is submitted that she was not wearing mangalsutra because she did not give him status of husband. The learned Counsel further submitted that the evidence of PW 2/Manik Naik, sister of Pramila and of PW 4/Ramdas Naik, brother of Pramila is hearsay, as they were not present at the time of assault. He further submitted that the injuries caused to the victim can be caused due to the fall and admission to that effect is given by the medical officer PW 7/Dr. Seema Bandekar. He further submitted that PW 3/Mr. Ulhas Lotlikar is a jeweler. However, he gave admission that the gold ornaments which were purchased by him from the lady were melted five to six months prior to its attachment.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the prosecution has tendered the evidence on the point of cruelty against the applicant/accused. She relied on the evidence of the complainant and sister PW 2/Manik Naik and brother PW 4/Ramdas Naik. Perused the judgment of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and also the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Perused evidence of all the witnesses. Learned Counsel for the applicant/accused could not point out as to where the learned Sessions Judge has gone wrong in appreciating either evidence or on the point of law. On perusal of the judgment of the Sessions Court, it is found that the evidence of PW 1/Pramila Naik so also evidence of other two witnesses PW 2/Manik Naik and PW 4/Ramdas Naik is properly appreciated by the Court on the point of cruelty. The complainant has deposed in the Court on oath that she was harassed for dowry and she was assaulted by the applicant/accused. Much importance is given to the admission given by the original complainant that she was not wearing mangalsutra because she did not accept him as a husband. However, this particular admission cannot be read in context of the entire evidence of the complainant and also her cross-examination. He has stated that he used to assault her, abuse her and he also sold her ornaments to the jeweler and, therefore, it appears that the complainant did not accept him as a husband due to the ill treatment given to her. Evidence of jeweler PW 3/Ulhas Lotlikar discloses that the applicant/accused had come to his shop and he had sold gold ornaments to him. Though PW 3/Ulhas Lotlikar gave admission in the cross-examination that he had melted those gold ornaments, this will not negate the fact that the applicant/accused had been to the jeweler and he sold the ornaments. The admission given by PW 7/Dr. Seema Bandekar, also cannot be considered in isolation, but her evidence that the patient had come to her with swelling in her eye on 18/03/2006 is important. Thus, the learned Sessions Judge has properly appreciated the entire evidence and nothing is pointed out as no illegality is pointed out from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge. Under such circumstances, the revision is dismissed. The order passed by the learned Sessions Court is maintained.