Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1735 (BOM)

Maruti Baburao Tilekar v. State of Maharashtra

2012-09-11

R.C.CHAVAN

body2012
JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against appellants' conviction by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three and two years with a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default simple imprisonment for six months respectively imposed upon the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on conclusion of Sessions Case No.226 of 1992 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under :- The victim Kusum was married to appellant No.1 Maruti on 31st May, 1990. She died of 98% burn on 9th April, 1991. She was in the 8th month of her pregnancy at that time. After her death, her father Ramchandra gave a report to the police whereupon an offence was registered and investigation was started. After performing inquest panchanama upon the body of the victim, it has been sent for post-mortem. In course of investigation, police recorded statements of witnesses, drew panchanama of spot and on completion of investigation, sent charge-sheet to the Court of Judicial Magistrate F.C., Pune, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all five witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the appellants. After considering their evidence, in the light of defence of denial, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State. With the help of both the learned counsel I have gone through the evidence on record. 5. PW-1 Ramchandra Piraji Dhanvat, victim's father states that at the marriage of the victim, the victim and her husband were given two tolas of Gold and some utensils as well. The victim was residing with the appellants, who are husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. He states that for the first 3-4 months, the victim was treated well. 5. PW-1 Ramchandra Piraji Dhanvat, victim's father states that at the marriage of the victim, the victim and her husband were given two tolas of Gold and some utensils as well. The victim was residing with the appellants, who are husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. He states that for the first 3-4 months, the victim was treated well. When she came to her parents house in the month of August, she reported that the appellants had asked her to bring steel cupboard, Gold ring and some money. He states that after 15 days, he carried his daughter to her matrimonial home and tried to convince the appellants not to persist their demands. He states that in Diwali festival he had brought his daughter back to his house when his daughter told him that the appellants were again demanding steel cupboard, Gold ring and some money. After Diwali festival, he again carried his daughter back to the matrimonial home and tried to convince the appellants that not to raise such demands. He then states that he received a letter on 5th March, 1991 which is at Exhibit No.15 which was followed up by two more letters received by him and his brother-in-law which are at Exhibit Nos.13 and 14, wherein, according to him, the victim had reported demands. He states that he and his brother-in-law had been to the appellants and tried to convince them that their demands could not be fulfilled. It appears that the victim's mother and sister had gone to the victim a day before the incident and on the next day PW-1 Ramchandra received a telephone call that the victim had suffered burn injuries and was admitted to Sassoon Hospital, Pune. He stated that by the time they reached Sassoon Hospital they found that the victim was dead. 6. In the course of cross examination, he admitted that the victim had come to his house a few days after the marriage and again in the month of August for the festival of Nagpanchami. He stated that for the Ganpati festival, victim's husband had taken the victim to Khadal Mal where Sou. Mangala Kothavale, his other daughter was residing with her husband. He also states that after Diwali, the victim had come to his house for the Makar sankranti festival and stayed with him for one and half months. He stated that for the Ganpati festival, victim's husband had taken the victim to Khadal Mal where Sou. Mangala Kothavale, his other daughter was residing with her husband. He also states that after Diwali, the victim had come to his house for the Makar sankranti festival and stayed with him for one and half months. He stated that after Makar sankranti, appellant No.1 did not come to take the victim back and that the victim had gone to Shikrapur for Drus with the elder brother of appellant No.1 on her own. He stated that the maternal aunt of appellant No.1 brought the victim back to his house as the appellants had refused to allow her to stay in their house and had insisted that the victim should return with her parents. Accordingly, he claimed that he had gone with his wife to the appellants' house. The appellants complained that the victim had left their home for Makar Sankranti against their advice that she should go after 2-3 days and inspite of the warning that if she left home, she should not come back, she left their home. PW1 Ramchandra stated that he had chastized his daughter for that wrong behaviour. He admitted in course of cross examination that the recitals about demand of steel cupboard, Gold ring and some money were not to be found in his statement as also his claim about convincing the appellants that he was not in a position to fulfill those demands. He denied that the victim had met with an accidental death, 7. PW-2 Haribhau Maruti Jambhulkar is the victim's maternal uncle, who curiously stated that the appellants used to abuse and beat the victim though there is no such reference of any of the three letters at Exhibit Nos.13, 14 and 15. It seems that PW-2 Haribhau had received a letter at Exhibit No.14 and it was the only letter received by him from the victim. Though the learned APP submitted that the appellants were not in the hospital, this witness admitted that appellant No.1 was in the hospital and nobody asked the appellant as to how the incident occurred. He stated that he did not know whether Prabhakar Kothavale, husband of PW-3 Sou Mangala assaulted appellant No.1 at that time. Though the learned APP submitted that the appellants were not in the hospital, this witness admitted that appellant No.1 was in the hospital and nobody asked the appellant as to how the incident occurred. He stated that he did not know whether Prabhakar Kothavale, husband of PW-3 Sou Mangala assaulted appellant No.1 at that time. It has to be noted that the witness did not deny that Prabhakar Kothavale had assaulted appellant No.1 but was content at stating that he did not know this. He admitted that he was present at the settlement of marriage and during the marriage but thereafter, he did not meet the victim till the incident. 8. PW-3 Sou. Mangala Prabhakar Kothavale is the victim's sister, who too claimed that when the victim had come for the function of Nag panchami, she reported that the appellants used to beat her. This has to be read in the context of PW-1 Ramchandra's evidence that for the first 3-4 months, the victim was treated well. The victim was married to appellant No.1 on 31st May, 1990 so four months would be over on 30th September, 1990. Therefore, if the victim was treated well for the first 3-4 months, at the time of Nagpanchami, there would be no occasion for the victim to report that she was abused or beaten by the appellants. PW-3 Sou. Mangala stated that after Diwali, she and her father had gone to the house of the appellants and her father told the appellants that he was not in a position to meet their demands. She again claimed to have accompanied her father by the end of February, 1991 to the house of the appellants. She contradicts her father's evidence by stating that the appellants did not tell them as to why they had been called to the appellants' house. She simply stated that they reached the victim to the matrimonial home and returned; It may be recalled that her father, however, stated that the appellants had explained that the appellants were angry because the victim had left for Makar Sankranti festival against the advice of the in laws. PW-3 Sou. She simply stated that they reached the victim to the matrimonial home and returned; It may be recalled that her father, however, stated that the appellants had explained that the appellants were angry because the victim had left for Makar Sankranti festival against the advice of the in laws. PW-3 Sou. Mangala stated that on 7th April, 1991 i. e just two days before the incident they had been to the victim's house and wanted to take the victim to the parental home, 'they were told that since it was 8th month of victim's pregnancy, she could be taken in the 9th month. There is nothing wrong in in-laws refusal to send the victim in the 8th month as it is not customary to send a pregnant woman in the 8th month to her parental home. 9. PW-4 Nandkumar Sahadu Kudale is a panch at the spot panchanama drawn at Exhibit No.20. He states that he saw a kerosene tin, stove and dough in the room, indicative of the fact that victim was possibly about to cook some food. The panchanama itself shows that the house was locked from inside and police had to remove iron bars by breaking through a window. Thus, it is not that the victim, had suffered burn injuries when somebody was present in the house and had provoked her to set herself on fire. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that PW-4 Nandkumar had not been declared hostile and his observations about presence of dough near the stove would be indicative of the possibility that there was accidental fire rather than the victim having committed suicide. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned trial Judge had wrongly drawn an inference that the victim was subjected to cruelty or that the victim was provoked to commit suicide solely on the basis of misreading of letters at Exhibit Nos.13, 14 and IS. He submitted that letters did not refer to any unlawful demands by the appellants. He pointed out that in the first letter at Exhibit No.15 which is dated 5th March, 1991, what is referred to is some work to be done by Pingale. This is possibly relation of victim's sister's husband. He submitted that letters did not refer to any unlawful demands by the appellants. He pointed out that in the first letter at Exhibit No.15 which is dated 5th March, 1991, what is referred to is some work to be done by Pingale. This is possibly relation of victim's sister's husband. He submits that story of demand which has surfaced after the unfortunate incident should have been rejected by the learned trial Judge in the face of the fact that none of these demands or the references to the demands could be found in the police statement of PW-1 Ramchandra. He further points out, and rightly in my view, that if for the first 3-4 months the victim was treated well, there would be no occasion for the victim's sisters to come to know that there was illtreatment or there were unlawful demands. It appears that the victim was also taken for Ganpati festival by appellant No.1 to one of her sisters' house. That sister, wife of Ping ale, has not been examined. There was one instance of discord in the family because the victim had gone to her parents' house for the festival of Makar sankranti against admonition of her in laws and this resulted in the victim not being allowed to return to the house when she had gone to her parents' house on her own, but she was taken back when she returned with her parents, and PW-1 Ramchandra admits that he had found his daughter's conduct to be improper and had chastized her. It has also to be noted that just a day before the incident, victim's sister PW-3 Sou. Mangala had gone to fetch the victim. But victim was not sent with her and she had been told that the victim could be taken in the 9th month of her pregnancy which was not wrong. 11. Therefore, first, in the face of evidence of PW-4 Nandkumar which would be consistent with an accidental fire, and secondly, since there is absolutely no evidence worth acceptance to show that the victim was ever treated with cruelty as defined in Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for meeting any unlawful demands, the story whereof has surfaced only after unfortunate incident, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge are in tune with the evidence which was tendered before him. The evidence is consistent with the innocence of the appellants. The reference by the learned trial Judge to answer given by accused No.1 to question No.12 in the statement about the appellants' desire to pledge the ornaments of the victim and therefore, the requirement that the victim produced the receipt of the purchase of the ornaments, should not have been sufficient to conclude that there was any unlawful demand or illtreatment for not fulfilling such demands. Therefore, though the learned APP vehemently tried to support the Judgment, conclusions drawn cannot flow from the evidence before the trial Court. 12. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. Conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three and two years with a fine of Rs. 500/ - or in default simple imprisonment for six months respectively imposed upon the appellants are set aside. They are acquitted of the said offences. Appeal allowed.