submits that the evidence on record would clearly
show that there was no demand of any valuables.
Even PW 5 – Kailas Patil, neighbor of present
appellants, examined by the prosecution, would
show that there was no demand of any valuables.
The evidence would further show that the
appellants are menial labours. Even at the
insistence of the deceased, the deceased and the
appellant no.1 – husband, had started residing
separately. Even, in order to pacify her she was
once kept at her parents' house. If, on some
occasions, the appellants had pressed the deceased
to join them for doing menial work for earning
wages, the same cannot be termed as cruelty.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.326 OF 2001
Bharat Gangaram Desle (Patil),
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : AUGUST 12, 2015
Citation;2015 ALLMR (cri)4155
2] The appellants/accused, who are convicted and
sentenced by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule
in Sessions Case No.124 of 1999 for the offence
punishable under Section 498A read with 34 of
Indian Penal Code, have preferred present appeal.
. Appellant no.1 was directed to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/, in default, to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for six months. Appellant nos.2 and
3 were directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/
each, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 15 days.
3] Appellant no.1 – Bharat is husband; appellant
no.2 – Gangaram is fatherinlaw; while, appellant
no.3 – Kamalabai is motherinlaw of deceased –
Sunita. Original accused no.2 – Sharad i.e.
brotherinlaw of deceased, was acquitted by
learned Addl. Sessions Judge for all the offences.
4] The complaint was filed by the father of
deceased namely, Bhimrao Patil. Marriage between
appellant no.1 and deceased had taken place two
and half years prior to her death on 27th
September, 1999. According to the FIR, the father
of deceased had given an amount of Rs.21,000/ as
dowry to the appellants/accused. For initial
period of cohabitation, the deceased was treated
nicely, however, thereafter, when the deceased
returned to her parental home for a festival, she
informed that all the appellants/accused used to
demand ring, cupboard, mattresses and cot.
However, the father of the deceased was unable to
provide the same due to his poor financial
position. It is alleged that in the alternative
of those articles, the accused demanded money and
since the demand was not fulfilled, they subjected
the deceased to cruelty. In the circumstances,
the deceased died due to poisoning and therefore,
the complaint was filed on the basis of which, the
crime came to be registered.
5] The Investigating Officer conducted
investigation, drawn panchnama of the spot of
occurrence, inquest panchnama and seized clothes
of the deceased. The post mortem notes were
collected from the Medical Officer. Viscera was
sent to the Chemical Analyst. Upon receipt of the
C.A. report, the Medical Officer gave final
report. Statements of necessary witnesses were
recorded and thereafter, charge sheet came to be
filed.
6] Defence of the accused including that of
appellants was of total denial. It was claimed by
them that death of the deceased was accidental and
there was no illtreatment to her.
7] Before learned Addl. Sessions Judge, in all,
nine witnesses were examined. PW 3 – Bhimrao is
father of the deceased. PW 4 – Dinkar is the
mediator in the marriage.
8] Learned Addl. Sessions Judge, upon
appreciation of the entire evidence, basically
relied over the report at Exhibit 28, which was
filed by the deceased during her cohabitation with
present appellant on 5th September, 1999. Said
report would show that there was no demand of any
dowry or valuables. According to the deceased, all
the appellants used to illtreat her as she was not
ready to go for any labour work. Accordingly,
appellant no.1 – Bharat, husband, used to beat her
on that count. As and when the deceased used to
make complaint of this illtreatment to her
maternal uncle, who was residing in the same
village, the appellants used to threaten the
deceased that in case, she would make any
complaint, they would kill her.
. In view of this statement, learned Addl.
Sessions Judge found that the case of unlawful
demand is not proved. Further, since the
prosecution failed to prove the case of murder so
also, abetment to commit suicide, the conviction
and sentence for the offence punishable under
Section 498A of Indian Penal Code came to be
recorded against the appellants/accused.
9] Mr.Solshe, learned counsel for the appellants,
submits that the evidence on record would clearly
show that there was no demand of any valuables.
Even PW 5 – Kailas Patil, neighbor of present
appellants, examined by the prosecution, would
show that there was no demand of any valuables.
The evidence would further show that the
appellants are menial labours. Even at the
insistence of the deceased, the deceased and the
appellant no.1 – husband, had started residing
separately. Even, in order to pacify her she was
once kept at her parents' house. If, on some
occasions, the appellants had pressed the deceased
to join them for doing menial work for earning
wages, the same cannot be termed as cruelty.
10] On the other hand, learned APP supports the
prosecution case. He submits that the earlier
complaint Exhibit 28, filed by the deceased
itself, would prove that there was illtreatment to
her.
11] On the basis of this material, following point
arises for my determination :
Whether the prosecution has proved
that the appellants, during cohabitation,
subjected deceased – Sunita with cruelty
in furtherance of their common intention?
. My findings to the above point are in the
negative. The appeal is therefore, allowed, for
the reasons to follow.
R E A S O N S
12] The contents of the report at Exhibit 28 filed
by the deceased during her lifetime, which are
already adverted to, would show that there was
insistence from the side of the appellants, that
the deceased should also join them for labour work
to earn livelihood.
. PW 3 – Bhimrao Patil, father of deceased,
during crossexamination, has admitted that the
appellants did not have any agricultural land.
Appellant no.1 was serving with some yarn factory.
Original accused no.1 (who has been already
acquitted by leaned Addl. Sessions Judge) was
working as a labour with some building contractor
while, present appellant nos.2 and 3 i.e. fatherinlaw
and motherinlaw of the deceased, were
doing agricultural labour work.
13] Learned counsel for the appellants points
towards the admissions of witnesses, that the
appellant no.1 was residing separately with
deceased – Sunita from the joint family for some
period on the suggestion of deceased Sunita.
Further, the evidence of the witnesses would show
that once, appellant no.2 – Gangaram had dropped
deceased Sunita at the house of her parents as the
deceased was aggrieved and in order to calm her
down, appellant no.2 Gangaram wanted that she
should stay with her parents.
14] If all these admissions are taken into
consideration, it cannot be said that the
prosecution has proved, beyond the reasonable
doubt, that the appellants, in furtherance of
their common intention, have subjected the
deceased to cruelty to such an extent that any
woman would have driven herself to commit suicide.
15] In that view of the matter, the appeal
deserves to be allowed and the appellants deserve
to be acquitted.
16] Hence, the following order :
a] The appeal is allowed.
b] The impugned judgment and order dated 17th
July, 2001 passed in Sessions Case No.124 of 1999
by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dhule,
convicting and sentencing the appellants/accused
for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
Indian Penal Code, is hereby set aside.
. Instead, the appellants are acquitted of the
said offence.
c] Bail bonds of the appellants shall stand
cancelled.
d] Fine amount, if already deposited, be refunded
to them.
e] Muddemal property be disposed as per the order
passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge.
[M.T. JOSHI, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment