Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 862 (BOM)

Vaman Madhukar Sonavale v. State of Maharashtra

2019-03-28

SADHANA S.JADHAV

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned APP for State. 2. The appellant herein is convicted for an offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer R.I. for two years and pay fine of Rs. 200/- I.d. to suffer R.I. for one month. The appellant is also convicted for an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for four years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- I.d. to suffer R.I. for two months. Hence, this appeal. 3. The present case is a pathetic story of a woman who died just within two years of marriage. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant was married to Sunita just two years prior to 15/7/1994. It is the case of the prosecution that on 15/7/1994 A.D. No. 41 of 1994 was registered at Satara Taluka Police Station under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The police had reached the spot. There, they had seen the dead body of Sunita. It appears that accidental death was registered on the basis of the statement of Shrirang Narayan Sonawane. He was present at the spot. 4. That the inquest panchanama was conducted in the enquiry under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. While conducting inquest panchanama, it was noticed that the eyes of the deceased were half opened. Her tongue was cramped under her teeth and portion of the tongue was protruding out of mouth. Whitish fluid was oozing from her nose and her mouth and there was ligature mark on her neck. 5. The spot panchanama was also conducted on the same day in the enquiry under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the spot was shown by Shrirang Sonawane. The spot panchanama would indicate that the body was hanging just at a height of few inches above ground in the said room where she allegedly committed suicide. There was a cot which was by the side of the wall and the body was hanging at the center of the room. It was apparent that there was no material to indicate that she had taken any support such as chair or table to hang to a rafter. 6. The dead body was sent for autopsy. There was a cot which was by the side of the wall and the body was hanging at the center of the room. It was apparent that there was no material to indicate that she had taken any support such as chair or table to hang to a rafter. 6. The dead body was sent for autopsy. The post mortem report indicates that the probable cause of death was "Asphyxia due to hanging but there was fracture with dislocation of C1-C2 i.e. spinal cord. Rigor Mortis was developed completely. Column No. 17 indicated that there was contused lacerated wound around neck extending from right mastoid area towards left side of neck and behind the neck 15 cm. x 2 cm. redish in colour. There was fracture of hyoid bone and there was dislocation of the spinal bone. 7. It appears that the parents of the deceased were informed by the police about the death of their daughter. The accused/appellant or his relatives had not taken any pains to inform her family members about her death. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed on 24/8/1994. At the trial, the prosecution has examined as many as five witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. 8. P.W. 1 Vilas Phadtare is the panch for the scene of offence panchanama. He has deposed before the Court that in July, 1994 he was called by the police near the house of Madhukar Sonavale around 7.30 p.m. He had seen the hanging body of Sunita Sonavale. They had taken down the said body and kept it on cot. They had seen the body was hanging to a rope. The house consisted of one room and was having tin sheet as a roof. The tin sheets were fixed on wooden bar and the dead body was hanging to one of the bar. It is elicited in the cross-examination that the appellant belongs to nomadic tribe. He alongwith his wife used to travel for selling pots and for galvanizing utensils. They used to stay for 5 to 6 months away from the house. Whenever the appellant was away from the house his brother Sachin used to give company to his sister-in-law as he was residing in the said house. 9. P.W.2 happens to be the complainant i.e. father of deceased Sunita. They used to stay for 5 to 6 months away from the house. Whenever the appellant was away from the house his brother Sachin used to give company to his sister-in-law as he was residing in the said house. 9. P.W.2 happens to be the complainant i.e. father of deceased Sunita. According to him, he had lodged FIR against appellant and others on 16/7/1994 alleging therein that his daughter had been harassed and ill-treated at the hands of the accused and therefore, she was fed up and hence, committed suicide on that day. The witness has further elaborated that his daughter had informed him on each and every visit, that she was being subjected to ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant as well as his family members and that he used to beat her under the influence of alcohol. He has also admitted that for some period a discordant note had struck between the couple. That they had amicably settled the issues, so much so that they had exchanged written agreements stating therein that they would not cross their lines. The appellant and his wife Sunita had attended the marriage of his son Ramdas at Hebbai. According to P.W. 2 in marriage of Ramdas, the appellant was annoyed with the fact that golden ring and wrist watch was not presented to him. It is further contended that there used to be constant demand from the appellant. 10. After her marriage when Sunita returned to her matrimonial home, 2 days thereafter, the younger brother-in-law had informed her parents that Sunita was suffering from vomiting. On the same day, Sunita was admitted in the hospital. She was declared dead on admission. The dead body was cremated at village Jihe. 11. It appears that the defence of the accused is that the accused used to remain away from the house for months together and therefore, Sunita was upset and she had committed suicide. P.W. 2 has also admitted that on 15/7/1994 he was informed by the police that Sunita had died, due to hanging. Soon thereafter, accidental death report was registered. The relatives of Sunita had agreed that Sunita had committed suicide since she was being harassed and ill-treated at the hands of the accused. P.W. 2 has also admitted that on 15/7/1994 he was informed by the police that Sunita had died, due to hanging. Soon thereafter, accidental death report was registered. The relatives of Sunita had agreed that Sunita had committed suicide since she was being harassed and ill-treated at the hands of the accused. It is elicited in the cross-examination that in the past there was a bond executed by the parties on 13/10/1993 thereby contending that in future the parties would respect individuality of each other and shall not quarrel over petty things. 12. P.W. 3 Narmada Salunkhe happens to be sister of the deceased Sunita. She has also reiterated that there was a demand for wrist watch. It is also admitted that after the marriage ceremony of Ramdas, Sunita had returned to her maternal home and soon thereafter, had accompanied the accused to her matrimonial home. Within 2 days of her departure her brother-in-law had informed her parents that she is suffering from vomiting and soon thereafter, they had received message that Sunita had expired due to hanging. 13. There is no witness on record to speak about the prelude to the incident. The report was probably given against unknown person. There is no record to show that as to who had informed the police about the death of Sunita. The document which was produced at the time of trial by the medical officer was more than 6 years old and the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated it by holding that the said document cannot be exhibited unless proved through substantive evidence. The investigating officer has also not thrown light as to the fact that how he received information about the death of Sunita. It is pertinent to note that in this case, medical officer has not been examined. The post mortem notes also indicate that the cause of death is "asphyxia due to to hanging. Except bare statement of the father of deceased Sunita, there is nothing on record to show that she was being ill-treated and harassed at the hands of the appellant due to which she was constrained to commit suicide. 14. This could be a classic case of casual investigation and lethargic prosecution. In fact, the medical records would show that Sunita had died in suspicious circumstances. 14. This could be a classic case of casual investigation and lethargic prosecution. In fact, the medical records would show that Sunita had died in suspicious circumstances. Moreso, because body of deceased was hanging hardly 3 to 4 inches above ground and it was not known as to how she committed suicide. It is not the case of the prosecution that the accused was not at home on the day of the incident. Although the scene of offence and the inquest panchanama would indicate that the first report was lodged by one Shrirang Sonawane. The statement of Shrirang Sonawane, on the basis of which A.D. was registered is not included in the papers of investigation. Neither the statement of Shrirang Sonawane is recorded, in the course of investigation nor the investigating agency has recorded statement of the neighbours of the accused to ascertain as to whether there was a foul play in the house on that day. 15. Be that as it may, this Court after 25 years cannot remand the matter back for reconsideration and there are several issues that would remain unanswered. However, just because the father of Sunita had disclosed that she had committed suicide by hanging, the prosecution had proceeded in the same direction. That was the perception of the father of the victim, which he had perceived on the basis of the information given to him by the police. It was incumbent upon the investigating agency to arrive at a conclusion, on the basis of the material collected in the course of investigation. In such cases the Court/Presiding Officer should not remain a silent spectator. Justice has to be done not only to the accused but to the deceased also. 16. The accused has not stated before the Court in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or by drawing any other material to show that he was not present near his house at the relevant time on that day. It is seen that the appellant was on the S.T. Stand on that day. 17. It was a case of custodial death. But, since the case was registered, investigated and tried under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was not called upon to explain the circumstances in which she died a suicidal death and the said explanation cannot be called in after 25 years. 18. 17. It was a case of custodial death. But, since the case was registered, investigated and tried under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant was not called upon to explain the circumstances in which she died a suicidal death and the said explanation cannot be called in after 25 years. 18. Since there is no material to indicate the prelude to the commission of suicide or happening in the house of the accused on that day, it cannot be said that the appellant had instigated, facilitated or abetted the commission of suicide of Sunita. As far as substantive sentence is concerned, it cannot be said that the accused has abetted or instigated commission of suicide. 19. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that since Sunita could not deliver a baby and she was harassed by her relatives on that count, she felt humiliated by the same and therefore, she had committed suicide. 20. In view of the above, conviction for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is upheld and the appellant is acquitted of the charges for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. However, sentence of fine deserves to be modified. Hence, following order is passed : ORDER (i) The appeal is partly allowed. (ii) The conviction for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code vide Judgment and Order dated 30/10/1999 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Satara is upheld. However, the sentence of fine is modified. The appellant to pay fine of Rs. 15,000/- within 4 weeks from today in Sessions Court at Satara. Upon failure to pay fine amount, the learned Sessions Court at Satara shall issue nonbailable warrant and take accused to custody. (iii) The conviction for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code vide Judgment and Order dated 30/10/1999 passed by IV Additional Sessions Judge, Satara is quashed and set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge. (iv) Writ be issued immediately. 21. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.