Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 2556 (BOM)

Ramesh v. State of Maharashtra

2015-12-07

A.B.CHAUDHARI

body2015
JUDGMENT : A.B. Chaudhari, J. Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 29.07.1999 passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.58/1996, convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month so also convicting him for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for one month, the present appeal has been filed. Submissions: 2. In support of the appeal, Mr. Mardikar, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, contended that the trial Judge committed error in convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC. According to him, the trial Judge did not record any finding that there was any live link in the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC which is sine quo non for recording an order of conviction. He then submitted that there is no evidence of cruelty in order to convict him for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. He then submitted that the evidence is vague and of general nature and there could be conviction for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. From the evidence, it is apparent that the witnesses are tutored one and, therefore, the same is liable to be discarded. He then submitted that the appellant is a Government servant and may lose is employment. He, therefore, prayed for acquittal of the appellant by allowing the appeal. 3. Per contra, Mr. Khan, the learned A.P.P. supported the impugned judgment and order and submitted that no fault could be found with it. The learned trial Judge correctly appreciated the evidence and, therefore, no interference could be made in the impugned order. Consideration: 4. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties. I have gone through the evidence so also record of the trial Judge. With the assistance of learned counsel for the rival parties, I have seen the reasons recorded by the trial Court. On the question of offence under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC, the relevant evidence is of Vasant (PW2), Dnyandeo (PW3) and Prakash (PW4). I have gone through the evidence so also record of the trial Judge. With the assistance of learned counsel for the rival parties, I have seen the reasons recorded by the trial Court. On the question of offence under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC, the relevant evidence is of Vasant (PW2), Dnyandeo (PW3) and Prakash (PW4). Vasant (PW2) stated thus in his evidence: ".....On 10/6/95 deceased Savita had been to my house for the marriage of my elder brother, Gajanan. Her husband was with her. After marriage of my brother Savit had informed me that the accused is having illicit relations with Shantabai. Savita was suspecting that her husband is having illicit relations with Shantabai. Savita was saying that her husband is sitting at the house of Shantabai till midnight. Further Savit was saying that whenever she is making enquiry with her husband about the delay, her husband rushed on her person & beat her. Savita was further disclosed that her husband is teasing her by saying that she is illiterate and uneducated. I have persuaded accused and Savita. Thereafter they had gone to their house. On 14/7/95 I received message that Savita is burnt and admitted in the hospital at Akola." Dnyandeo (PW3) stated thus in his evidence. "After marriage, the accused behaved well with Savtia for about 6/7 months. Thereafter Savita was saying about cruelty & ill treatment by accused. She was saying that her husband is having illicit relations with Shantabai. Shantabai used to come to the house of accused. The accused also used to go to the house of Shantabai, by consuming liquor. Whenever Savita was making enquiry with accused the accused used to beat her. We used to pursue accused, but there was no improvement in his behaviour. Before one month of this incident, Savita and her husband had been to the house of Vasant (PW-2) for marriage. That time also I have persuaded accused. We have received message that Savita is burnt, pursuant to that we had been to the hospital, at Akola and Savita was found dead." Prakash (PW4) stated thus in his evidence. "Deceased Savita was my sister. Before 1 months of this incident, I had been to the house of accused to fetch Savita as there was marriage of my maternal uncle. The accused has not sent Savita with me, though I was there for a bout 2-3 days. "Deceased Savita was my sister. Before 1 months of this incident, I had been to the house of accused to fetch Savita as there was marriage of my maternal uncle. The accused has not sent Savita with me, though I was there for a bout 2-3 days. The accused was not coming to house till midnight. He was going to the house of Shantabai. Whenever Savita was making enquiry with accused about Shantabai, the accused was attempting to beat her." 5. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses and their cross-examination shows that the evidence of witnesses has gone unchallenged on the material point referred to cruelty meted to the deceased. On the contrary, in the cross-examination of Vasant (PW2) the very first sentence was that the accused had assured that he would not commit any such mistake with reference to the ill treatment. The only omission that was brought was that the accused was teasing her by saying that she is an illiterate and uneducated and nothing more. Similar is the case with the evidence of Dnyandeo (PW3) and Prakash (PW4). The submission that their evidence is tutored one, does not appeal to me since these witnesses have deposed about the illicit relations of the appellant with Shantabai working in the Primary Health Centre where he was working. It is due to illicit relations with Shantabai he used to arrive late in the midnight and used to assault and ill treat the deceased under the influence of alcohol. The evidence that appellant was having illicit relations with Shantabai has not been challenged in the evidence of Vasant (PW2) and Dnyandeo (PW3) and there is no inconsistency in the evidence of Vasant (PW2) about it in the cross-examination and rather the evidence has gone unchallenged on that aspect about the illicit relations. The deceased used to tell Vasant, Dnyando and Prakash as to why she was being beaten by the appellant namely; he used to come late midnight from the house of Shanta and when asked about it, he used to assault her. 6. In that view of the matter and looking to the nature of the evidence which is consistent, there is nothing remained for holding that there was no cruelty meted out to her by the appellant. 6. In that view of the matter and looking to the nature of the evidence which is consistent, there is nothing remained for holding that there was no cruelty meted out to her by the appellant. I, therefore, agree with the finding recorded by the learned trial Judge that the appellant must be held guilty of the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. 7. The next question is about the proof of evidence under Section 306 of the IPC. Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses nowhere shows any live link as required by Section 306 of the IPC as to the cause for commission of suicide by her. In other words, there is no evidence that on the date of commission of suicide or somewhere nearby that the appellant had done any such act by which she was compelled to commit suicide. A live link for commission of suicide in order to prove the offence under Section 306 of the IPC is very much necessary, which is absent. I, therefore, find that the prosecution has failed to prove the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC and his conviction on that pretext will have to be set aside. 8. In the result, following order is passed. ORDER (a) Criminal Appeal No.236 of 1999 is partly allowed. (b) The impugned judgment and order dated 29th July, 1999 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Washim convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 306, Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month, is set aside. (c) The impugned judgment and order convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 498-A, Indian penal Code and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default further Rigorous Imprisonment for one month is confirmed. (d) Eight weeks are granted to the appellant to surrender to the concerned Police Station who shall take him to the jail to serve the sentence. (e) Copy of this order be sent to the District Health Officer, Zilla Parishad, Washim for terminating the appellant from service due to conviction.