Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 963 (BOM)

State of Maharashtra v. Nandkishor Wamanrao Kubde

2018-04-05

M.DESHPANDE

body2018
JUDGMENT : M. Deshpande, J. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of acquittal dated 28.07.2004 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.185/2002, by which the learned Judge of the Court below acquitted the respondents of the offence punishable under Section 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the State is before this Court. 2. I have heard Mr. Madiwale, learned A.P.P. for the State. Counsel for the respondents chose not to remain present when the appeal was taken up for its final hearing. 3. Intimation was given to Police Station, City Kotwali, Amravati by Police Constable about death of Sandhya on 15.05.2002, when she was brought to Irwin Hospital in a serious condition. On getting such an information about death, an Accidental Death came to be registered since at that time, cause of death was not ascertained. Thereafer, her body was sent for post mortem. During the investigation on 16.05.2002, Rajesh Titre (PW1) lodged oral report (Exh.35) with Police Station. On the basis of the said, a crime was registered vide Crime No. 38/2002. The printed FIR is at Exh.36. The gist of the FIR is that after marriage of the deceased with the respondent no.1 Nandkishor, whenever she used to come to her parental house, she used to disclose that there is harassment to her and the respondents are demanding Rs. 50,000/- 4. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses. All witnesses are parents, brothers and close friends of the deceased Sandhya. No other independent witnesses from the village where the deceased was having her matrimonial house are examined. Even the investigating officer is also not examined by the prosecution. 5. Inquest is at Exh.25. While conducting the inquest over the dead body in presence of panchas, no marks of any physical abuse were appearing on the dead body of Sandhya. Post mortem report is at Exh.28. Column no.17 of the Post Mortem Report also shows that at the time of performing autopsy, the autopsy surgeon could not notice any marks of violence over the dead body. As per the post mortem report, the Doctor was unable to give any opinion about the probable cause of death. He, however, preserved viscera for chemical analysis. 6. Column no.17 of the Post Mortem Report also shows that at the time of performing autopsy, the autopsy surgeon could not notice any marks of violence over the dead body. As per the post mortem report, the Doctor was unable to give any opinion about the probable cause of death. He, however, preserved viscera for chemical analysis. 6. The investigating officer on 12.07.2002 under requisition (Exh.29) sent three articles to the Chemical Analyzer by addressing a communication to the Deputy Director, Forensic Laboratory, Nagpur. Those articles are Exh.A1, two sealed bottles containing viscera, A2 one small closed bottle having seal bearing signature of medical officer and Exh.3 was empty pocket of Trica 0.25 mg. Till culmination of the trial, the Chemical Analyzer's report was not placed on record by the prosecution. Therefore, the exact cause of death of Sandhya has remained in dark. 7. Rajesh Titre (PW1), is brother of the deceased, Pranali Gaikwad (PW2) is close friend of the deceased, Yogita (PW3) is elder married sister of the deceased, Sanjay Patil (PW4) close friend of Rajesh (PW1), Pramod (PW5), is husband of Yogita (PW3), Haridas (PW6) is father of the deceased and Manda (PW7) mother of the deceased. The evidence of Sanjay (PW4) is in the category of hearsay evidenced as his evidence discloses that he received information from Rajesh (PW1) about demand and harassment to his sister. All other prosecution witnesses in choras are deposing before the Court that the deceased was harassed and there was a demand of Rs. 50,000/- from the respondents. 8. By now, the law is well settled regarding an appeal against acquittal. Merely because another view is possible, that by itself is not sufficient to substitute the appellate Court's view in place of the view of the learned Judge of the trial Court. Provided the learned Judge of the trial Court has considered all evidence and there is no perversity in appreciation of the prosecution evidence. 9. Though, the prosecution witnesses have stated in one voice about harassment, on closer scrutiny of their evidence, it is clear that in that behalf their evidence is too general in nature. Not only that, it is vague also. 10. 9. Though, the prosecution witnesses have stated in one voice about harassment, on closer scrutiny of their evidence, it is clear that in that behalf their evidence is too general in nature. Not only that, it is vague also. 10. It is established on record that the respondent no.1 was running a Krushi Seva Kendra in partnership with his friend and due to the bickering in the partnership, after closing the said Krushi Seva Kendra, he started grocery shop and it was in running condition. There was no demand on behalf of the respondents for setting up the business for the respondent no.1. There is no evidence in that behalf is available on record and the trial Court, in my view, was right in acquitting the respondents. 11. Further, the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly noted that at no point of time, there was any type of obstruction to the deceased in her life by the respondents. Even the evidence of the prosecution witnesses shows that on number of occasions on her own the deceased Sandhya had visited her parents house for attending various festivals and stayed there fore considerable time. It is also established on record that even after marriage, the respondents permitted Sandhya to pursue her education and in fact she used to go at Wadhona for study. The prosecution witnesses are not stating that at any point of time, the respondents objected Sandhya for pursuing her studies even after her marriage. 12. Haridas (PW6) tried to exaggerate by stating that the respondents used to take Sandhya to the field for collecting cotton and was not providing drinking water till evening. At this stage, it would be useful to make reference to his evidence as well as the evidence of Manda (PW7), mother of the deceased that four days prior to the date of incident, Manda stayed in the matrimonial house of Sandhya and there she was honoured. Not only that, even when the mother in law of the deceased visited the house, at that time also she was also honoured. If really there was harassment, normally there would not have been honouring at the hands of the respondents of Manda because according to the prosecution, they were demanding Rs. 50,000/- from the parents which demand was not fulfilled. 13. If really there was harassment, normally there would not have been honouring at the hands of the respondents of Manda because according to the prosecution, they were demanding Rs. 50,000/- from the parents which demand was not fulfilled. 13. In my view, all these aspects were evaluated correctly by the learned Judge of the trial Court to reach to the conclusion that there is no evidence which can be believed and Sandhya was harassed at the hands of the respondents. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Further, there is no evidence to show that the deceased was instigated and/or abetted to commit suicide. Adding to the said, there is no final opinion about the cause of death. 14. All these aspects, in my view, show that the learned trial Court has correctly come to the conclusion that no case is made out for conviction and rightly acquitted the respondents. 15. In the result, I find no merit the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed.