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. 2026:BHC-AUG:42060 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