Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 845 (BOM)

Sanjaysingh v. State of Maharashtra

2018-03-22

V.M.DESHPANDE

body2018
JUDGMENT : V.M. Deshpande, J. The appellant along with his brother, mother and sister faced a Charge for the offences punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Also, they were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. By the impugned judgment, dated 17.7.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 06/2000, the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia acquitted all of them of the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. By the said judgment, the appellant's brother/original accused no.2 - Rajendrasingh, his mother/accused no.3 - Sushilabai and his sister/accused no.4 Sau. Ushabai were also acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant stands convicted by the said judgment for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. He is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and on that count, he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment 15 days. 3. I have heard Shri E.W. Nawab, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Nitin S. Rao, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. According to Shri Nawab, the learned counsel for the appellant, on the same set of evidence, the learned Judge of the trial Court has acquitted the original accused nos.2 to 4 of all the offences. He submitted that there is nothing in the evidence to differentiate the case of the appellant from the case of acquitted accused, except the fact that the appellant is the husband of deceased Priti. He submitted that if the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is scrutinized, then it is clear that there is no direct evidence against the appellant that at any point of time he made illegal demand from the deceased and/or through the deceased to her father. It is also his submission that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand. It is also his submission that there is no evidence to show that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for non fulfillment of demand. He submitted that the neighbours failed to support the prosecution case and all the witnesses are the close relatives of the deceased. He relies on the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Bajaj vs. State of M. P., reported in AIR 2001 SC 3020 and prayed that the appeal be allowed. 5. Per contra, Mr. Rao, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State submitted that evidence of PW6 Rammilan singh Thakur, his daughter PW7 Sapna Thakur and her husband PW9 Kishore singh Thakur show that there was demand for construction of house and there was ill-treatment to the deceased and therefore, the Court below has rightly considered the evidence and has convicted the appellant. 6. Marriage of deceased Priti was performed with the appellant in the month of July, 1994. Her death has occurred on 27.10.1999. The inquest panchanama (Exh.67) shows that at the time of conducting inquest, PSI Sheikh and panch witnesses noticed burn injuries on the body of deceased Priti. The post mortem report (Exh.63) shows that when autopsy was conducted over the dead body of Priti, the Autopsy Surgeon noticed superficial extensive burn injuries all over the body to the extent of 99%. The cause of death as appearing in the post mortem report is neurogenic shock due to extensive burns. The said post mortem report (Exh.63) is duly proved by PW2 Dr. Sudhir Karlekar. Thus, it is crystal clear that the deceased died unnatural death due to burn injuries within a period of 7 years from the date of her marriage. 7. In view of the fact that the appellant is already acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution cannot press into service the presumption under section 113B of the Indian Evidence Act. Insofar as statutory presumption under Section 113A of the said Act is concerned, the law is well crystallized on the issue that unless the prosecution proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, the said cannot be ipso facto and/or automatically gives rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abated by the husband. 8. Insofar as statutory presumption under Section 113A of the said Act is concerned, the law is well crystallized on the issue that unless the prosecution proves that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, the said cannot be ipso facto and/or automatically gives rise to the presumption that the suicide had been abated by the husband. 8. Prior to registration of the offence, PW5 Akash Thakur, a relative of the appellant went to Police Station, Gondia and lodged report (Exh.70) intimating the factum of unnatural death of Priti. On the said, Accidental Death No. 58/1999 under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was registered and in the said enquiry, inquest was performed so also the spot of the occurrence was drawn at Exh.65. The said is duly proved by PW3 Devesh Mishra. 9. After receipt of telephonic message from Gondia to Rammilansingh Thakur (PW6) at Nagpur about burning incident of his daughter Priti, he rushed to Gondia. He went to the house of his daughter and noticed that her body was lying in burnt condition. He then lodged oral report to Police Station, Gondia City, Gondia. His oral report is at Exh. 82. It is dated 27.10.1999, whereas the printed first information report is at Exh.83. The Police Station Officer registered the first information report as Crime No.365/1999 for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant and other accused persons. 10. As per the first information report, Priti was married with the appellant, who used to work as Clerk (Typist) in an Engineering College at Gondia. After 10 days of the engagement of his daughter with the appellant, the appellant's elder brother Rajendrasingh (original accused no.2) said that his brother wants Bajaj Super scooter. The first informant agreed to it and purchased the scooter and handed over the same. It is further stated in the report that on the day of the marriage, at the time of arrival of marriage procession, Rajendrasingh (original accused no.2) claimed that the bridegroom is not given gold ring and gold chain. On that, the said was given to the bridegroom. On the next day, at the instance of accused Rajendrasingh all the gifted articles were transported to Gondia in a metador. 11. On that, the said was given to the bridegroom. On the next day, at the instance of accused Rajendrasingh all the gifted articles were transported to Gondia in a metador. 11. It is also stated in the first information report that one and half years prior to lodging the report, the fatherinlaw of Priti expired and that time quarrel took place between the brothers on the issue of obsequies (Teravi). That time, Priti asked the first informant on phone to remit Rs. 3,000/for the said purpose and therefore, he came at Gondia and gave Rs. 3000/to his daughter. It is further stated in the first information report that at that time Rajendrasingh (original accused no.2) demanded Rs. 60,000/each for the purpose of constructing flats of all the brothers on a plot situated at Kaka chowk. That time, as per the first information report, Rajendrasingh asked that the amount should be given to the first informant's soninlaw. Hence, at the instance of the appellant Priti came to Nagpur for demanding Rs. 10,000/. That time he gave Rs. 10,000/. After lapse of one month, again Rajendrasingh informed on phone that construction of house is in progress and the first informant shall make arrangement for Rs. 15,000/for the purpose. Not only that, as per the first information report, Rajendrasingh further told that there is dispute going on in between the appellant's sister Usha, his mother and Priti over the issue of money in the house and therefore, he is going to Gondia and the first informant should also come. That time, the first informant went to Gondia. There, Rajendrasingh informed him that he was in need of Rs. 15,000/for the purpose of house and asked him to give it. As per the first information report, on the very same day, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw of Priti quarreled with him and also beat his daughter over the issue of money. Thereafter, after lapse of 89 days, the appellant came to Nagpur for taking Rs. 15,000/and therefore, he gave Rs. 15,000/to her. It is also stated in the first information report that since last three months, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw of Priti are residing with the appellant and deceased and the motherinlaw and sisterinlaw harassed his daughter to a great extent. Rajendrasingh used to give abuses in filthy language and also used to extend threat. 15,000/and therefore, he gave Rs. 15,000/to her. It is also stated in the first information report that since last three months, motherinlaw and sisterinlaw of Priti are residing with the appellant and deceased and the motherinlaw and sisterinlaw harassed his daughter to a great extent. Rajendrasingh used to give abuses in filthy language and also used to extend threat. It is further stated that his daughter used to disclose all these facts to him on phone. In the first information report, it is further stated that Priti used to inform the first informant that Rajendrasingh, his mother and sister could do anything and her life is in danger from them. Ultimately, when lastly he received a telephonic call from Priti, she disclosed, as per the first information report, that for how long he will suffer for her and she will see as to what the said people will do. With these allegations, the first information report was lodged. 12. After completion of the investigation, by PW10 Gopalrao Gulhane charge-sheet was filed. 13. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant and other accused persons, in all 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. As found earlier, PW1 Lakhanlal Khobragade and PW4 Sawalram Bhalotiya, the neighbours of the appellant, did not support the prosecution. The prosecution has examined PW6 Rammilansingh Thakur, father of the deceased, PW7 Sapna Thakur, sister of the deceased, PW8 Sanjaysingh Thakur, cousin of the deceased and PW9 Kishorsingh Thakur, husband of PW7 Sapna. 14. From the evidence of PW7 Sapna, it is clear that she is elder to Priti and her marriage was performed in 1991. She is resident of Nagpur and her place of residence is 45 KM away from the house of PW6 Rammilansingh. Therefore, it is quite clear that daily she could not come to the house of first informant. 15. PW6 Rammilansingh Thakur, the father of deceased, in his evidence has deposed on the line of the first information report (Exh.82). If his evidence is minutely scrutinized, it is explicitly clear that he is making all his accusations against original accused no.2 Rajendrasingh. His evidence and also the first information report show that at no point of time, the appellant had made any type of demand from him. If his evidence is minutely scrutinized, it is explicitly clear that he is making all his accusations against original accused no.2 Rajendrasingh. His evidence and also the first information report show that at no point of time, the appellant had made any type of demand from him. Right from the first demand i.e. demand of a scooter after the ring ceremony, it is clear that every time the demand was made by Rajendrasingh (accused no.2). Even his evidence would show that after death of the father of the appellant, when there was a dispute amongst the brothers, he received a phone call from his daughter Priti and demanded Rs. 3,000/for obsequies (Teravi), however, his evidence is totally silent that Priti disclosed him that the appellant had asked her to demand Rs. 3,000/from her father. Further, when this prosecution witness went to Gondia for Teravi function along with Rs. 3,000/, the first information report as well as his evidence show that the amount was not handed over to the appellant, but the amount was handed over to his daughter Priti, the deceased. 16. Insofar as construction of the house is concerned, the first information report and the evidence of PW6 Rammilansingh shows that it is Rajendrasingh, who asked Rammilansingh to provide financial aid, if required, to the appellant. Even at that particular point of time, the amount was not demanded by the appellant and even Rajendrasingh claimed only aid and that too, if required. The evidence is very clear that since Rajendrasingh asked to give Rs. 10,000/-to the appellant, the appellant sent Priti to bring the said amount. Priti came at Nagpur and Rs. 10,000/-was handed over to her. Even at this stage, the evidence of the father of deceased is silent that it was disclosed to him that there is a demand from the appellant and in pursuance to the said demand she is at Nagpur. Further, after getting information about the quarrel when this prosecution witness had been to Gondia, according to his evidence, in his presence Rajendrasingh asked to pay the amount to the appellant. Thus, the evidence is totally silent that at any point of time the appellant had made any demand. 17. Evidence of PW6 Rammilansingh further shows that he received a telephonic message from Priti twice or thrice. Thus, the evidence is totally silent that at any point of time the appellant had made any demand. 17. Evidence of PW6 Rammilansingh further shows that he received a telephonic message from Priti twice or thrice. In that behalf also this prosecution witness is not stating that, that time Priti disclosed that there was any ill-treatment to her at the hands of the appellant. If the evidence of this prosecution witness is to be believed, Priti informed him that the accused are rich persons and they can go to any extent. Thus, most general statement was made by Priti. No specific accusations were made by her against her husband. 18. PW7 Sapna has stated that the appellant used to harass Priti for demand. Her evidence is not finding corroboration from the father of PW6 Rammilansingh. Evidence of PW8 Sanjaysingh Thakur and PW9 Kishorsingh Thakur are also general in nature and it would be rather difficult to accept that they would know any harassment to Priti from the appellant especially when the father himself is silent in his evidence about the alleged harassment by the appellant. 19. As observed above, the other accused persons are acquitted by the Court below and their acquittal is not challenged by the State. Be that as it may. There is no independent evidence by which the case of the appellant could be segregated from the case of acquitted accused persons. As noticed earlier, there is no evidence of demand of dowry or subject the deceased to cruelty by the appellant. Therefore, in my view, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the charge under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant. Even according to the father of deceased, he received last telephone call from Priti and in that she informed him "aap kab tak mere liye pareshan hote rahenge. Inko kya karna hai karne do. Main dekh lungi. Main aapko telephone nahi karungi". Even in this last telephonic message, there is nothing to show, even remotely, that for any act or omission on the part of the appellant, the deceased has taken the extreme step of her life. Therefore, merely because she has committed suicide, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the same. Consequently, I pass the following order : 1. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. 2. Therefore, merely because she has committed suicide, the appellant cannot be held responsible for the same. Consequently, I pass the following order : 1. The Criminal Appeal is allowed. 2. The judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gondia, dated 17.7.2004 in Sessions Trial No. 6/2000, convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is hereby quashed and set aside. 3. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The appellant, who is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled. 5. With this, the criminal appeal is allowed and disposed of.