Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2051 (BOM)

Manikrao Chandarrao Arya v. State Of Maharashtra

2019-09-04

S.S.SHINDE

body2019
JUDGMENT : S.S. Shinde, J. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of parties matter is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This Petition takes an exception to the order dated 03rd February 2016 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 848 of 2014 arising out of C.R. No. 320 of 2014 registered at Nigadi Police Station at Pune. 3. The prosecution case in nutshell is as under:- Complainant namely Mr. Manikrao Chandarrao Aary has filed Complaint in Nigadi Police Station vide C.R. No. 320/2014 for the offences punishable under Section 498(A), 306 r/w. 34 of IPC against the Accused persons and another. 4. As per case of the prosecution, the Complainant namely Mr. Manikrao Chandarrao Aary, filed complaint alleging therein that, his daughter namely Supriya was married with Accused namely Limbraj on 10.05.2007 at Latur. After the marriage deceased Supriya went to cohabit with Accused Limbraj in matrimonial home where accused persons are residing. It is alleged that, there was demand of illegal amount and on account of it there was ill treatment caused to deceased Supriya by the accused persons. It is also alleged that, on two occasions there were abortion committed by accused persons. It is further alleged that, there was demand of Rs. 2 lakhs for purchasing new flat, and said amount was paid. It is alleged that, deceased Supriya along with her husband and two children went to reside separately since 15.06.2014 in new flat. It is further alleged that, on 28.06.2014 deceased Supriya has committed suicide by hanging herself. 5. After completion of the investigation police have submitted charge-sheet and after committal the said matter is allotted to the file of Sessions Judge and at present is pending before Sessions Court. 6. The Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 filed the application for discharge below Exh. 4 in Sessions Case No. 848 of 2014. However, said application for discharge was rejected on 17.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein filed Criminal Revision Application No. 18/2016 (Exhibit-8). The Revision was allowed and Respondent nos. 2 to 6 were discharged from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this Criminal Writ Petition filed by the original informant. 7. Mr. However, said application for discharge was rejected on 17.12.2015. Being aggrieved by the said order Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein filed Criminal Revision Application No. 18/2016 (Exhibit-8). The Revision was allowed and Respondent nos. 2 to 6 were discharged from the aforesaid offences. Hence, this Criminal Writ Petition filed by the original informant. 7. Mr. Mundargi, learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner invites attention of this Court to the judgment of the Sessions Court and submits that, the Sessions Court has not specifically adverted to the statements of the witnesses recorded under Section 161 of the Indian Evidence Act. it is submitted that, the Sessions Court by cryptic reasons and impressed by the fact that victim (Supriya) left matrimonial home two weeks prior to alleged commissions of suicide, and therefore there was no overt-act attributed qua accused i.e. Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 herein in the proximate time and date of the alleged offence of suicide, discharged the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 from the alleged offences. Learned senior counsel invites attention of this Court to the statements of number of witnesses of the prosecution, and submits that, if their statements are considered in its entirety, there is no manner of doubt that the alleged offence under Section 498-A has been clearly disclosed and the prosecution machinery has collected sufficient evidence for trial against the accused. It is submitted that merely because two weeks prior to alleged commission of suicide of victim, her children and husband shifted from the matrimonial house situated at Phule Nagar, Chinchwad, to the new flat purchased by the husband of the victim and therefore, the Sessions Court came to the conclusion to discharge the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 from the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, by ignoring continuous ill-treatment and harassment caused by all the accused to victim Supriya. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein and reasons assigned by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune in the judgment and order dated 17.12.2015 submits that the Petition deserved to be allowed. 8. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the pleadings in the Petition, grounds taken therein and reasons assigned by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune in the judgment and order dated 17.12.2015 submits that the Petition deserved to be allowed. 8. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 invites attention of this Court to the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court, Pune in the impugned judgment, and submits that Sessions Court after discussing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other material on record, discharged the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 from the alleged offences. The possible view has been taken by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. It is submitted that, it is an admitted position that two weeks prior to the alleged commission of suicide, husband (Limbraj) and his wife-victim (Supriya) and their children shifted to their new flat and therefore there was no any positive act attributed qua Respondent nos. 2 to 6 within the proximate period and time of the alleged offence of commission of suicide against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and therefore Respondents are rightly acquitted from the offences punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It is submitted that if the statement of all the prosecution witnesses are read in its entirety, there are general allegations of alleged harassment and ill-treatment without assigning specific role to any of the accused. Therefore, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 submits that Petition may be rejected. 9. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions, with the assistance of the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned APP appearing for the Respondent State and learned counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6, perused the pleadings and grounds taken in the Petition and impugned order passed by the Sessions Court, Pune so also the judgment and order passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune on 17.12.2015 thereby rejecting the application filed by the Petitioners for discharge. Upon careful perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, Pune it is abundantly clear that the Sessions Court, Pune has not adverted to the statement of all the witnesses. It appears that, the Sessions Court only adverted to the statements of PW-1 and did not consider the statements of other prosecution witnesses. Upon careful perusal of the judgment passed by the Sessions Court, Pune it is abundantly clear that the Sessions Court, Pune has not adverted to the statement of all the witnesses. It appears that, the Sessions Court only adverted to the statements of PW-1 and did not consider the statements of other prosecution witnesses. When the application of the Petitioner for discharge was rejected by the Ad-Hoc District Judge and Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune by order dated 17.12.2015 it was incumbent upon the Sessions Court to meticulously go through the evidence collected by the prosecution including statement of the prosecution witnesses and then take appropriate decision. However, so far as offences punishable under Section 498-A r.w 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concern the findings recorded by the Sessions Court are cryptic and without adverting to the entire evidence collected by the prosecution agency and in particular statement of the prosecution witnesses. It prima facie appears that said witnesses have specifically alleged harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of the Respondent nos. 2 to 6. In that view of the matter the Petition to the extent of allowing the application of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for discharge from offence punishable under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code deserved to be quash and set aside. 10. So far as alleged offence under Section 306 of Indian penal Code against the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 is concern, admittedly the victim, her children and husband left the matrimonial home and went to reside at new place 15 days prior to alleged offence of commission of suicide. To attract the ingredients of Section 107 and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary to bring on record evidence showing that there were positive acts i.e. abetment, aiding or an instigation, on the part of the accused within proximate period and time of the alleged commission of suicide by the victim. In the present case prima facie it appears that material collected by the prosecution to prosecute Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is to short to proceed with the trial against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. In that view of the matter the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court to the extent of discharging the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is to short to proceed with the trial against Respondent Nos. 2 to 6. In that view of the matter the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court to the extent of discharging the Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 from the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code needs no interference. 11. In the light of the above, I pass the following order :- (a) The order below Exhibit 8 in Criminal Revision Application No. 18 of 2016 dated 03.02.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune thereby discharging the petitioners i.e. Respondent nos. 2 to 6 herein, from the offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside; (b) However, the impugned judgment and order to the extent of allowing the application of the petitioners/respondent nos. 2 to 6 herein for discharge from the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and stands confirmed; (c) since the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune has not made endeavour to look into all the statements of the witnesses and other evidence collected by the prosecution agency, the matter is remitted back to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune to consider a fresh the prayer Respondent nos. 2 to 6 herein for their discharge from the offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; (d) Criminal Revision Application No. 18 of 2016 in Sessions Case no. 848/2014 pending on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune stands restored to its original file to the extent of considering the case of Respondent Nos. 2 to 6 for discharge as mention in clause 'c' herein above. (e) The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pune is directed to complete the entire exercise by expediting the hearing of Revision and to render a final decision, as expeditiously as possible, however, within a period of three months from the receipt of the order. (f) Rule is made absolute on above terms. Criminal Writ Petition is partly allowed, and stands disposed of accordingly.