Kalpana committed suicide? The well in question, from
the description given in the scene of occurrence
panchanama, appears to be a dangerous place. There was
no protective wall around the well and therefore this
place was quite accident prone. No witness came forward
to suggest that Kalpana had no reason to go near the well
and yet she found drowned in the well. No one mentioned
that Kalpana's coming towards well was an unusual move
for her. No one saw Kalpana coming towards the well and
no one explained as to why Kalpana could not have gone to
the well except for the purpose of committing suicide.
On the other hand, it has come on record that well in
question is property of her husband – accused No.1. Very
close to this well, house of Kalpana's brotherinlaw is
situated. This could, therefore, be a place where she
had some reason to go. A case of drowning cannot be
further classified as suicidal drowning or accidental
drowning. Therefore, it was for the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that Kalpana died due to suicide
and not due to accident. As said above, there is no
evidence on record to suggest that Kalpana must have
committed suicide. Therefore, there always remains a
possibility, though remote, that Kalpana could have
accidentally fell into the well. I am, therefore, not
inclined to hold that Kalpana died due to suicide. When
Kalpana's dead body was found, it was reported to be
accidental death. Till 03.12.1999, the police did not
register any offence. It was on 03.02.1999, because the
father of Kalpana alleged that Kalapna committed suicide,
everyone started believing that she died due to suicide.
Unfortunately, P.W.1Kalpana's father did not reside in
the village. He had no knowledge as to what was Kalpana's
routine and why she could not have gone to the well where
her dead body was found. In my view, the prosecution
could not prove that this was a case of suicide. In view
of this, there is no possibility of convicting accused
No.1 for the offence of abettment of said suicide.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 474 OF 2002
Sambhaji s/o. Raosaheb Manal
V
The State of Maharashtra
CORAM : A.V.NIRGUDE, J.
DATED : 01.03.2016
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)4614
1. This appeal challenges judgment and order dated
22.08.2002 passed by the learned Second Additional Adhoc
Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 46 of
2000 in which there were five accused out of which
accused NO.1Sambhaji is convicted for offence punishable
under section 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Rest of the accused were acquitted. Accused No.1Sambhaji
has filed this appeal. The parties would be referred to
by their designation in the lower Court.
2. The prosecution alleged that all the accused
demanded Rs.5000/ from Kalpana – newly wedded bride of
accused No.1 and harassed her over such demand. On
01.12.1999 Kalpana's dead body was found in a well, which
was situated in agricultural land of accused No.1. The
prosecution asserted that Kalpana committed suicide and
her suicide was abetted by the accused.
3. The prosecution depended on in all eight
witnesses. Out of which P.W.1Rambhau, P.W.2Govind and
P.W.3Madhukar are father and brothers of victim Kalpana.
They tried to prove that Kalpana was subjected to
harassment over demand of dowry.
4. P.W.1Rambhau stated that on 29.04.1999 Kalpana
was married to accused No.1. At that time of wedding, he
paid Rs.22,000/ to the accused as dowry. After the
marriage Kalpana and her husband accused No.1 started to
reside separately from the joint family. After 2 to 4
months from the date of marriage, accused started
demanding Rs.5000/ from Kalpana suggesting her that she
should demand this amount to her father. Kalpana came to
his house and told about this demand. He told her that
after harvesting cotton, he would arrange some amount.
Kalpana after staying for 24 days with him went back to
her husband's house. Her brother P.W.2Govind and her
cousin P.W.3Madhukar went with her up to her matrimonial
house. P.W.2Govind and P.W.3Madhukar came back and
told him that they had occasion to see accused No.1, when
they reached Kalpana at her matrimonal house. Accused
No.1 asked them whether they brought Rs.5000/, which he
had demanded earlier. P.W.2Govind pleaded with him that
they had no money at that time but they would arrange the
same after cotton harvesting. Soon thereafter he learnt
that Kalpana fell in the well and drown to death.
Hearing this noise, he went to Police Station and lodged
complaint with police station.
5. P.W.2Govind and P.W.3Madhukar reiterated what
P.W.1Rambhau stated in his deposition. They reiterated
that they had occasion to meet accused No.1, who demanded
Rs.2000/ to them etc.
6. P.W.4 is one Digambar. He said that after
marriage, Kalpana used to visit his house and had
informed him that her inlaws and her husband were
harassing her for demand of Rs.5000/.
7. P.W.5 Padmakar is police patil of the village.
He stated that he had submitted report to Gangapur Police
Station about Kalpana's death.
8. P.W.6Pandharinath is panch of scene of
occurrence panchanama. Said panchanama is at Exh.20 and
would throw light on the situation of the well. The
contents of said panchanama are important and relevant.
It says that on 01.12.1999 at about 9 p.m., there arose
alarm of people near the well in question. The people
found Kalpana's footwear (sleepers) floating on the water
of well. They suspected that Kalpana had drowned in the
well. Soon thereafter villagers sent anchor to the bottom
of the well and succeeded in bringing dead body of
Kalpana at the upper level of water. Soon, thereafter, a
report was sent. The location is further described as
under :
. The well was not developed with parapet wall.
It was on the ground level. The debris removed at the
time of digging of well was spread around bank of the
well. On the Northern side, there was a small footpath
coming towards the well. On Eastern side of the well,
there was a hut belonging to Machindraaccused No.2 i.e.
brother of accused No.1. In one corner, there was a berry
tree. The postmortem report clearly indicated that this
was a case of death by drowning. Mud was found in the
fist of the deadbody.
9. P.W.7 is A.P.I.Muley, who took over the
investigation after he received complaint from witness
No.1, in which it was alleged that Kalpana had committed
suicide.
10. P.W.8 is Baban, but this witness is not
important for deciding this appeal.
11. The learned Judge of the trial Court after
appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that the
prosecution could prove that it was accused No.1 who
demanded money and harassed his wife Kalpana. He also
held that Kalpana committed suicide and it was accused
No.1, who abetted such suicide.
12. After hearing submissions and perusal of record,
the following questions are required to be decided :
i. Whether prosecution could prove that
accused No.1 treated victim Kalpana with cruelty
as contemplated under section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code?
ii. Whether prosecution could prove that the
victim committed suicide?
iii If answer to question No. (ii) is in
affirmative, whether the prosecution could prove
that accused No.1 abetted such suicide?
13. P.W.2Govind and P.W.3Digambar clearly proved
the fact that within few months of the marriage, accused
No.1 started demanding Rs.5000/ from Kalpana and treated
her with cruelty. She was compelled to inform this fact
to her father who could have helped her in such difficult
situation. P.W.2Govind and P.W.3Digambar further proved
direct demand made by accused No.1, when they met him in
the last week of November, 1999. They clearly stated
that they met accused No.1 at his house and it was he who
demanded Rs.5000/ from them. The situation was quite
difficult for Kalpana to deal with. From one side she
was treated with cruelty by her husband and on the other
hand, her father was sending her back to accused No.1.
The treatment meted out to Kalpana was harassment with a
view to force her or her father to meet the unlawful
demand. Accused No.1, thus, is found guilty for the
offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. I, therefore, confirm the conviction of the
appellant under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. I
also confirm quantum of sentence awarded to him on such
count.
14. Now the question is – whether it is proved that
Kalpana committed suicide? The well in question, from
the description given in the scene of occurrence
panchanama, appears to be a dangerous place. There was
no protective wall around the well and therefore this
place was quite accidentprone. No witness came forward
to suggest that Kalpana had no reason to go near the well
and yet she found drowned in the well. No one mentioned
that Kalpana's coming towards well was an unusual move
for her. No one saw Kalpana coming towards the well and
no one explained as to why Kalpana could not have gone to
the well except for the purpose of committing suicide.
On the other hand, it has come on record that well in
question is property of her husband – accused No.1. Very
close to this well, house of Kalpana's brotherinlaw is
situated. This could, therefore, be a place where she
had some reason to go. A case of drowning cannot be
further classified as suicidal drowning or accidental
drowning. Therefore, it was for the prosecution to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that Kalpana died due to suicide
and not due to accident. As said above, there is no
evidence on record to suggest that Kalpana must have
committed suicide. Therefore, there always remains a
possibility, though remote, that Kalpana could have
accidentally fell into the well. I am, therefore, not
inclined to hold that Kalpana died due to suicide. When
Kalpana's dead body was found, it was reported to be
accidental death. Till 03.12.1999, the police did not
register any offence. It was on 03.02.1999, because the
father of Kalpana alleged that Kalapna committed suicide,
everyone started believing that she died due to suicide.
Unfortunately, P.W.1Kalpana's father did not reside in
the village. He had no knowledge as to what was Kalpana's
routine and why she could not have gone to the well where
her dead body was found. In my view, the prosecution
could not prove that this was a case of suicide. In view
of this, there is no possibility of convicting accused
No.1 for the offence of abettment of said suicide.
Hence, following order is passed :
i. The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
ii. The conviction and sentence awarded to
the appellant under section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code is set aside and the appellant is
acquitted for the said offence.
iii. The conviction and sentence awarded to
the appellant for the offence punishable under
section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is
confirmed.
iv. The appellant shall surrender to bail
within one week from today. If the appellant
does not surrender to bail within one week from
today, arrest warrant be issued against him.
v. The appellant is entitled to setoff
for the period for which he was in the custody.
vi. Fine amount deposited for the offence
punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code if paid by the appellant, be refunded to
him.
[A.V.NIRGUDE,J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment