Maharashtra State Board Of Wakfs vs Shaikh Yusuf Bhai Chawla & Ors on 11 May, 2012
It was wrong to
FIR No. 104/2014 State Vs. Dilip Chawla 6 of 17
suggest that she visited the accused in the hospital when he was
unwell alongwith Sh. Sumedh. It was wrong to suggest that
accused was not in a condition to distinguish between right and
wrong at that time. She did not know if in the year 2013, due to
the aforesaid condition accused was unemployed. She never
asked accused if he was employed whenever she visited him for
parties at his residence. She did not know if the father of accused
had sold off any of his property in the year 2013 and she did not
know if accused used to take money from his father for
organising such parties or get together. It was wrong to suggest
that she used to keep the mobile phone of accused with her since
she was close to him. She did not know if on 12.03.2014, accused
had lost control on his mind due to which the aforesaid hotel
administration had called his family. She had drafted her
complaint Ex.PW1/A. It was correct that she had stated in her
complaint that she wanted the accused to be arrested. It was
wrong to suggest that she was unemployed in the year 2013.
Thereafter, one CD already exhibited as Ex.P1 was played
in the court and it was observed by the court that the CD Ex.P1
was not responding and no visual was displayed and was not
running.