Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1981 (BOM)

Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra

2015-08-24

A.B.CHAUDHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 12th April, 2001, passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1996, by which the appellant-accused-Namdeo Bhauraoji Nagpure was convicted and sentenced of offences under Sections:- [a] 498-A, Indian Penal Code, [Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months, and [b] 306, Indian Penal Code [Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for two months], the appellant-accused filed the instant appeal in this Court. Facts: In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Narendra Madhukarrao Parate, the Police Patil of village Waigaon, reported to Police Station, Deoli, about the suicide committed by Chhaya Namdeo Nagpure by jumping into the well and as such Accidental Death Case No. 24/95 was registered. Police visited the spot, prepared a Spot Panchanama, Inquest Panchanama and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. Statements were record. Father of deceased Chhaya, namely Mahadeo Lahanuji Lichade [PW 1], resident of Allipur, Tq. Hinganghat, Distt. Wardha, during investigation, stated that the marriage of Chhaya with accused-appellant had taken place nine years before the incident; but the accused used to harass her and used to beat her. When his son went to Waigaon to bring his daughter, the accused refused to send her with him and abused his daughter and son both. On 3rd June, 1995, his son came back to Allipur. On 4th June, 1995, the complainant received a message that his daughter died due to fall in the well. On the basis of report given by the complainant, Police registered Crime No. 80/95 on 4th June, 1995 at Police Station, Deoli, for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code. Further investigation was undertaken by the police and on completion thereof, a charge-sheet was filed in the Court. Accordingly, trial was held. The learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the evidence, convicted the appellant as above. Hence this appeal. Arguments: 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order recorded by the learned Trial Judge is based on the evidence which is vague and he could not have convicted the appellant of the offence for which conviction was recorded. Hence this appeal. Arguments: 2. Learned counsel for the appellant, assailing the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction, submitted that the impugned Judgment and Order recorded by the learned Trial Judge is based on the evidence which is vague and he could not have convicted the appellant of the offence for which conviction was recorded. He submitted that the evidence tendered by the prosecution is so vague and untrustworthy that the same is liable to be rejected and the Trial Court ought to have recorded the order of acquittal. He then submitted that no offence either under Section 498A or Section 306 of Indian Penal Code was at all proved and, therefore, the appellant is required to be acquitted by setting aside the impugned Judgment and Order. 3. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, per contra, supported the impugned Judgment and Order, and submitted that there is evidence on record and the conviction of the appellant is well supportable. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the appeal. Consideration: 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. I have perused the entire evidence tendered by the prosecution. I have perused the reasons recorded by the learned Trial Judge and compared the same with the evidence which I have seen. 5. Mahadeo Lahanu Lichade [PW 1] is the father of deceased Chhaya. Admittedly, the marriage had taken place nine years before the date of incident and, therefore, the aspect of presumption will have to be kept away. 6. Then coming to the evidence to find out whether offences were proved nor not, I find from the evidence of Mahadeo Lichade [PW 1] that throughout his evidence, in para 2, he has vaguely stated about the ill-treatment or beating given by the appellant to his daughter, i.e., wife of the appellant-accused. Careful perusal of the evidence shows that there are no specifications about the cruelty or harassment as contemplated under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, and the evidence is as vague as it could be. At any rate, Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, contemplates cruelty as defined therein and sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, clearly show the ingredients, which, in my opinion, are absent in the instant case on the evidence. Admittedly, the suicide was committed by Chhaya on 4th June, 1995. At any rate, Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, contemplates cruelty as defined therein and sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Explanation to Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, clearly show the ingredients, which, in my opinion, are absent in the instant case on the evidence. Admittedly, the suicide was committed by Chhaya on 4th June, 1995. The only circumstance brought by the prosecution for the suicide as contemplated by Section 306 or Section 498A, Indian Penal Code, is that on the earlier day, complainant's son had gone to bring Chhaya to his house and the appellant-accused had not sent Chhaya with her brother Vijay. Beyond that, there is no evidence of any harassment or cruelty or instigation as such, so that any offence under Section 498-A or Section 306, Indian Penal Code, could be said to have been made out. I quote relevant portion of Para 3 of the evidence of Mahadeo Lichade [PW 1], which reads thus:- "3. In 1995 I have sent my son Vijay to fetch my daughter since my sister and niece had been to my house, but the accused has not sent Chhaya with him. And therefore my son Vijay came back. On the next day, myself and my wife had been to our field. I have received message that my daughter fall down in the well. And therefore, myself, my wife, daughter Sunita and our relative Nilkanth had been to Waigaon. We had gone firstly to the house of accused and from there to the spot of incident. We have seen that my daughter Chhaya is in said well....." 7. I, thus, find from the above evidence that the only evidence brought on record is that accused had refused to send Chhaya with Vijay a day earlier to the date of incident. There is no other evidence beyond this. Same is the evidence of Chhaya's mother Parvatibai [PW 2] and similar is the evidence of Sunita Deotale [PW 3], sister of deceased Chhaya. Beyond this, there is no evidence. In the light of the above evidence, we think, the evidence is too vague and that apart, the same does not satisfy the requirements of Section 498-A, Indian penal Code. Same is the evidence of Chhaya's mother Parvatibai [PW 2] and similar is the evidence of Sunita Deotale [PW 3], sister of deceased Chhaya. Beyond this, there is no evidence. In the light of the above evidence, we think, the evidence is too vague and that apart, the same does not satisfy the requirements of Section 498-A, Indian penal Code. In so far as the offence under Section 306, Indian Penal Code, is concerned, I find that the same evidence has been relied upon by the prosecution, but it nowhere shows any live link for Chhaya to commit suicide which is the heart and soul of Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code read with Section 306 thereof. I, thus, find that the evidence is infirm, short of proof of offences under Sections 498-A and 306, Indian Penal Code. In the result, I find that the impugned Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence is wrong and illegal and cannot be countenanced. Hence I make the following order:- ORDER [a] Criminal Appeal No. 113 of 2001 is allowed. [b] The impugned Judgment and Order dated 12th April, 2001 passed by learned Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Sessions Trial No. 18 of 1996 convicting the appellant - Namdeo Bhauraoji Nagpure of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is set aside. [c] The appellant-accused is held not guilty of the charge framed against him for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, and is acquitted of the same. [d] His bail bond stands cancelled. [e] Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to him.