Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1244 (BOM)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. DINESH RAIBHAN JANJAL

2005-09-19

J.N.PATEL, R.C.CHAVAN

body2005
( 1 ) TAKING exception to the respondents acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, for offence punishable under sections 302 and 498a read with section 34 of the Penal Code, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 2 ) FACTS, which led to prosecution of the respondents are as under : ( 3 ) ACCUSED No. 1 Dinesh was married to Jyoti. Two children - Sonu, aged three years, and Sachin, aged 11/2 Years - were born out of this wedlock. Accused no. 2 Vachhalabai and No. 3 Raibhan are parent of accused No. 1 Dinesh, whereas, accused No. 4 Bajirao is their kinsman. Accused No. 1 Dinesh, husband of Jyoti, used to ill-treat Jyoti at the instance of remaining three accused persons. He used to starve her. Jyoti had given birth to third child, which expired. Jyoti had disclosed ill treatment to her parents, but went back to matrimonial home voluntarily. On 1-5-1994, victims brother Shankar had called on the victim. At that time, Jyoti expressed that there was threat to her life and, therefore, she wanted to accompany him. She could not, however, return to her parental home. At about 10 p. m. on 1-5-1994, accused No. 1 reported to the police that his wife and children were found missing in the evening and he guessed that they may be in the well, since he had seen the dead body of his son in the well. On this report, the police reached the spot and commenced investigation. The dead bodies were taken out of the well and after inquest, were sent for post mortem examination. The police recorded statements of witnesses and since the investigation revealed complicity of these four accused, they were arrested. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was sent to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First class, Akot, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Akola. ( 4 ) THE learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, charged the respondents of offences punishable under sections 302 and 498a read with section 34 of the Penal Code. The respondents pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses. The respondents pleaded not guilty and hence were put on trial. In its attempt to bring home the guilt of the respondents, the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses. Upon consideration of their evidence in the light of defence of denial taken, the learned Additional Sessions judge held that the charges were not proved and hence proceeded to acquit all the four respondents. Aggrieved thereby, the State has preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) WE have heard Adv. Shri D. B. Yengal, the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the appellant/state and Adv. Shri. Anilkumar Thakkar for the respondents. With the help of both the learned counsel, we have gone through the entire evidence rendered before the Trial Court. Though the prosecution came up with the case that victim Jyoti was ill-treated, there is no evidence about such ill- treatment. It is not in dispute that respondents No. 2 and 3, parents of respondent no. 1, were not residing with the victim and her husband. Respondent No. 4s role in the course of matrimonial life of victim is unclear. Why he has been roped in as a co-accused is an enigma. PW 1 Ganesh, the victims father, stated that the deceased disclosed about her ill-treatment only after the death of her third child. Till then, there was no complaint of any ill treatment. It was suggested to this witness that after the unfortunate death of the third child, the deceased was behaving abnormally and that, therefore, one Dr. Dale was called. He denied the suggestion that the deceased was mentally disturbed. While denying that the accused had disclosed to him the mental condition of the deceased, the witness took some time to answer, as has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions judge. ( 6 ) PW 2 Shankar is victims brother. In contrast to what PW 1s father ganesh stated, Shankar claimed that since one year after the marriage, the deceased used to complain that she was not provided proper food, etc. It may be recalled that according to Ganesh, these complaints came only after the death of the third child. The deceased had also reportedly told Shankar that she was beaten by accused No. 1 and her head was pushed in the hearth. It may be recalled that according to Ganesh, these complaints came only after the death of the third child. The deceased had also reportedly told Shankar that she was beaten by accused No. 1 and her head was pushed in the hearth. He stated that his father had asked accused No. 1 whether the accused will maintain the deceased and children and that accused No. 1 had assured that such instances would not occur in future. ( 7 ) AS regards the incident dated 1-5-1994, the versions of PW 1 Ganesh and PW 2 Shankar differ. PW 1 Ganesh stated that Shankar reported to him that the deceased disclosed that she apprehended danger to her life and, therefore, wanted to accompany Shankar. Thereupon Shankar told the deceased that he will bring a bullock cart and fetch her with children, as she had a baggage and he had come on a bicycle. According to PW 2 Shankar, he had gone to his sisters house on a bicycle. She was at home and the accused were in the field. She told shankar about her apprehensions. Shankar claimed that he asked the victim to accompany him, whereupon the victim asked him as to how she could accompany him with baggage and children, when he had only a bicycle with him. She asked him to bring a bullock cart. ( 8 ) IT may be noted that according to PW 1 Ganesh, the distance between the villages of the accused and PW 1 is just three miles. Shankar stated that he returned to his village at about 7 p. m. They received a message about the incident before 9 p. m. and they reached the spot at 9 p. m. Thus, it seems more likely that the victim wanted to come to the parental home, whereas her brother felt that he would fetch her on the next day. Frustrated thereby, the victim took the final plunge along with her children, because there was absolutely no alteration between the accused and the victim prior to the incident, indicative of complicity of the accused in the crime. ( 9 ) THE prosecution had examined PW 6 Tejrao, who was supposed to be an eye-witness to the incident. He stated that he did not know anything about the incident. ( 9 ) THE prosecution had examined PW 6 Tejrao, who was supposed to be an eye-witness to the incident. He stated that he did not know anything about the incident. It seems that the witness had admitted that he was on cross terms with the police on having been prosecuted in two theft cases, etc. PW 7 Deepak is a neighbour, who stated that there used to be quarrels between accused No. 1 and his wife. He stated that rest of the accused were not staying in that house. He did not know the reasons for quarrels between accused No. 1 and the deceased. However mere quarrels would not indicate that the accused had any motive strong enough, to eliminate his wife and two children by throwing them in the well. ( 10 ) THE prosecution had examined victims sisters Asha and Indira as PW 4 and PW 5 respectively. They seem to have some correspondence with the victim. They reside at Village Pathardi, which is not far away from Village Sawara, where the accused reside. They stated that the victim used to disclose to them that accused No. 1 used to beat the victim at the instance of accused No. 3 and 4 and that accused No. 2 used to tease her. According to PW 4 Asha, about 15 days before the incident, the deceased had been to her house and was with her for about 1 1/2 hours. The deceased had disclosed to her that accused No. 1 had beat her and that the victim had said that nothing remained in her life. ( 11 ) PW 5 Indira stated that about 15 days before the incident, the deceased and her children had been to her house, because Indiras husband was not well and they were with her for few hours. At that time too, the deceased had complained of teasing and ill-treatment from the respondents/accused. She claimed to have received a letter, which has been handed over to the police and seized in the presence of PW 3 Bhaskarrao. This letter dated 12-7-1992, which has not been marked as Exhibit, shows that the victim was really disgusted with life. She complained that both her sisters were lucky and she was unlucky and that her father had done great injustice and spoiled her life. This letter dated 12-7-1992, which has not been marked as Exhibit, shows that the victim was really disgusted with life. She complained that both her sisters were lucky and she was unlucky and that her father had done great injustice and spoiled her life. She was pregnant at that time and complained that her husband was not able to provide required medicines to her. She had stated that her life was full of worries and that she did feel that no charm was left in her life. Even while saying so, she had all the care and affection for her sister and exhorted her sister to pay attention to her health and consult a good doctor. This state of mind and the level of frustration that the victim was undergoing, have to be borne in mind while deciding upon complicity of the respondents/accused in victims death. ( 12 ) WHETHER respondent No. 1 was responsible for the victims state of mind, is undoubtedly a matter of enquiry, because the respondent faces a charge under section 498a of the Penal Code. But just as PW 6 Tajrao, an alleged eye witness, who turned hostile, and PW 7 Deepak, who merely stated about the quarrels, PW 10 Pramod, servant working with the accused, has not supported the prosecution. He contradicted portions in his police statement, which indicated that the victim and accused No. 1 had quarrels. However, mere quarrels would not be enough to imply cruelty or ill-treatment of such a nature as could be held enough to hold that accused No. 1 had, by his conduct, driven the victim to commit the suicide. ( 13 ) IN view of this, though the events are indeed extremely tragic, we find that the conclusions drawn by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while acquitting the respondents, cannot be called improbable. Hence, the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is not required to be set aside, ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal fails and is dismissed. Bail bonds, if any, furnished by the respondents shall stand cancelled. Appeal dismissed.