Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2269 (BOM)

Shekhar Shriram Pardeshi v. State of Maharashtra

2012-12-05

R.C.CHAVAN

body2012
JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellants by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur for offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and sentences of rigorous imprisonment for five years and three years with fine of Rs.2,000/-respectively on the two counts. The learned Judge had acquitted the appellants of the offence punishable under Section 304 - B of the IPC. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under: The appellants are the husband and in laws of the victim Sangita, who was married to appellant No.1 on 24-12-1986. She died as a result of burn injuries sustained by her on 6-8-1990. It was alleged that the appellants were ill-treating the victim on account of failure of her relations to fulfil unlawful demands. On a report by her father, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. This report itself was given two days after the incident, i.e., 88-1990. The police had already performed the inquest and caused the dead-body to be sent for post-mortem examination. In the course of investigation, the police recorded statement of witnesses and on completion of the investigation sent the charge-sheet to the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Solapur. 3. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged the appellants of offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 304B r/w Section 34 of the IPC. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all nine witnesses in its attempt to bring home the guilt of the appellants. After considering their evidence in the light of defence of denial of any demand or ill-treatment or complicity in the death of the victim, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants, as afore-mentioned. 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 short, "APP") for the State. With the help of both I have gone through the evidence on record. 5. PW-1 Vijaya, PW-2 Sarita and PW-3 Shivaji are the neighbours of the appellants. They state that there used to be quarrels ill the family of the appellants, presumably with the victim. With the help of both I have gone through the evidence on record. 5. PW-1 Vijaya, PW-2 Sarita and PW-3 Shivaji are the neighbours of the appellants. They state that there used to be quarrels ill the family of the appellants, presumably with the victim. None of them, however, state the cause of the quarrels. PW-1 Vijaya states that Sangita's father Shriram had on one occasion told her about demand by the appellants of a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. PW-1 Vijaya, PW-2 Sarita and PW-3 Shivaji seem to have reached the spot immediately after the incident and Shivaji broke open the door of the room in which the victim was burning. The only word that the victim is alleged to have uttered, according to PW-1 Vijaya, was "chowgha", i.e., four persons and it seems that because of this word the four appellants are before this Court. 6. PW-4 Shankarao has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution case. PW -8 Prabhakar too was declared hostile but in the cross-examination by A.P.P. stated that Sangita was beaten but could not state that the accused were beating her. PW-6 Hamid Khan is a friend of PW-5 Shriram, the victim's father, who states of his having advanced a loan to PW-5 allegedly for being paid to the appellants. 7. PW-5 Shriram, the victim's father and PW-7 Subhash, the victim's uncle are the witnesses who state about discord between the victim and the appellants. PW-5 Shriram states that four months after the victim's marriage, ill-treatment and demands began. He claims to have paid various sums to the appellants from time to time. In his cross-examination he was asked questions about disputes in his family which may not be material. He stated that his sister-in-law Chhaya was in Solapur on the day of the incident. He also stated that his parents in-law were residing at Solapur and were very much at Solapur when the incident occurred. He admitted certain letters written by his wife and himself which are at Exhibits - 35 to 39. As to his sending a sum of (Rs. 500/- by Money Order, it was suggested to him that this amount was sent for the purpose of purchasing a cradle for the victim's daughter Guddi on Guddi's birth. He denied that the victim was mentally deranged. As to his sending a sum of (Rs. 500/- by Money Order, it was suggested to him that this amount was sent for the purpose of purchasing a cradle for the victim's daughter Guddi on Guddi's birth. He denied that the victim was mentally deranged. PW-7 Subhash stated that once he had taken the victim to the appellants' house when the appellants asked the victim as to whether she had brought money and refused to take the victim into their house. The witness seems to have been prosecuted for prohibition offences in the past. 8. PW-9 PSI Chandrakant Ghodke conducted the investigation in this case. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the victim had never been ill-treated by the appellants and there is absolutely no evidence to this effect, except the interested word of PW-5 Shriram and PW-7 Subhash. He points out that none of the neighbours examined state that the quarrels were on account of any unlawful demand. The learned counsel submitted that the same letters which had been exchanged and which had been proved at the trial, had been referred to by the learned Judge in his Judgment. In one of the letters, which is at Exhibit-29, the victim had herself stated that there was no illtreatment to her and that she used to threaten others with committing suicide and putting them under fear. The learned Judge has extensively quoted from the letter at Exhibit-27, written by appellant No.1 about an incident which took place in the house. The learned Judge seems to have drawn some 10-11 inferences on the basis of this letter. In the letter at Exhibit-28, written by accused No.2, which also is quoted by the learned Judge, the accused had stated that the victim's daughter should be blessed with good sense but not like her mother. The letter also mentions that if Sangita again leaves the house, they would not take her back in the house. From this letter the learned Judge again drew five inferences. There is another letter at Exhibit-3D referred to by the learned Judge in para 12 of his Judgment. This letter, written by accused No.2, is to the effect that if Sangita wanted to come back to the matrimonial home and had a desire to live properly, she may be brought back. There is another letter at Exhibit-3D referred to by the learned Judge in para 12 of his Judgment. This letter, written by accused No.2, is to the effect that if Sangita wanted to come back to the matrimonial home and had a desire to live properly, she may be brought back. The author adds that she may be brought only after asking Sangita, since Sangita was not in the habit of listening to anyone. The author adds that Sangita was an illiterate, rustic but a beautiful girl who was zero in virtues. Again the learned Judge seems to have drawn six inferences from this letter to. It appears that vide letter at Exhibit-39 written by PW-5, the victim's father, he had stated that his daughter Sangita was short-tempered and that if she said something out of anger, he would be responsible and not the in-laws. 10. It appears that vide letter at Exhibit-39 written by PW-5, the victim's father, he had stated that his daughter Sangita was short-tempered and that if she said something out of anger, he would be responsible and not the in-laws. 11. The learned APP submitted that the inferences drawn by the learned trial Judge, after analysing all the letters, cannot be faulted and, therefore, supports the conclusions drawn. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that these inferences are thoroughly unwarranted. As an illustration, the learned counsel pointed out that in the letter at Exhibit-27 there is absolutely no reference to any suspicion about Sangita's character and yet the learned Judge has drawn an inference that accused No.1 was very much suspicious about Sangita's character. The learned counsel for the appellants is right in submitting that most of the inferences drawn by the learned Judge from the recitals in the letter are unnatural and one sided. The letters only point to the behaviour of Sangita even after the birth of a child. The letters suggest that the appellants would be ready to take Sangita back only if she decides to behave. Now this cannot be termed as ill- treatment or cruelty, as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. 12. The letters only point to the behaviour of Sangita even after the birth of a child. The letters suggest that the appellants would be ready to take Sangita back only if she decides to behave. Now this cannot be termed as ill- treatment or cruelty, as defined under Section 498A of the IPC. 12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the evidence shows that the victim's grand-parents were residing in the same City, Solapur, but none of them have been examined at the trial when they would have been the best witnesses to state as to how the victim was being treated. PW-5 Shriram, the victim's father, stated that the wife of PW - 7 Subhash by name Chhaya was also in Solapur on the date of the incident. He stated that he did not know whether Chhaya had gone to the house of the appellants for meals on the day of the incident along with Rajendra and children. That was possibly the day of Rakhi Poornima. He was shown about thirteen photographs in the course of his cross-examination. Some of them were possibly of the day of the incident. The fact that PW-5 could not deny that Chhaya had been to the house of the victim on the incidental day, is significant. PW-7 Subhash also states that his wife and children were in Solapur. However, he too stated that he did not know whether his wife and children had gone to the house of the appellants on the day of the incident as it was a Rakhi Poornima day. This would show that the witnesses are suppressing something. Chhaya would have been the best witness to state as to what happened on the incidental day. Further, both PWs-5 and 7 have not categorically denied that Chhaya had not been to the house of the appellants, indicating their unease in the matter. This, when read along with the evidence of the neighbours who only state about quarrels, but not the cause of quarrels, should have persuaded the learned Judge to see that there was a room for doubt that the quarrels arose because of the victim's temper and behaviour rather than any unlawful demand, the benefit whereof should have gone to the appellants. The conclusions drawn by the learned Judge on the basis of the evidence tendered and interpreting letters amounts to presuming things for which there was no basis. There is absolutely no evidence to show that any conduct on the part of the appellants on the incidental day triggered the victim into committing suicide. As to the ill-treatment or cruelty, the only evidence is one letter where the victim's husband seems to have admitted that his father raised his hand on the victim. Even in respect of this, the victim's husband had specifically stated that what his father did was as a father would do to his daughter. In any case, one swallow does not make summer. There is nothing to show that there was any physical or mental harassment of such magnitude as would have inflicted upon the victim grievous physical or mental hurt. After this incident or raising hand, there does not appear to be any other such incident. 13. In view of the above, the conviction of the appellant’s for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the IPC and the sentences imposed upon them cannot be sustained. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the IPC and the sentences imposed upon them are set aside. They are acquitted of the said offences. Their bail bonds stand cancelled and the sureties discharged. Appeal allowed.