Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 115 (BOM)

State Of Maharashtra v. Rajendra Ramchandra Kulal

2022-01-12

PRAKASH D.NAIK

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order dtd. 16/3/2007, passed by Ad-hoc District Judge, Satara, acquitting the accused for the ofences punishable under Ss. 306 read with 34 and 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC', for short). 2. The respondents herein were accused nos.1 to 5. Learned advocate for respondents, on instructions, submitted that respondent nos.3 and 4 has expired during the pendency of this Appeal. Respondent no.3 has died on 19/6/2014, and, respondent no.4 has expired on 9/9/2021. The photocopies of the death certifcates are produced, which are taken on record and marked "X' and "X-1', for identifcation. The Appeal as against the said respondents would stand abated. 3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was married to respondent no.1 (accused no.1) about three and half years prior to the incident in question. The FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased on 26/11/2004. For a period of about one year after the marriage, the deceased was treated well. However, thereafter, the accused had ill treated the deceased. There was demand of articles by them. There was continuous harassment to the deceased. Accused no.1 was instigated by other accused and on instigation, the accused no.1 used to abuse and assault the deceased. On 24/11/2004, the deceased, her mother had attended the wedding ceremony of relatives. On account of not fulflling demand, there was altercation and the deceased was slapped by her mother-in-law. On 25/11/2004, the deceased was missing from the house. Her body was found below the tree on 26/11/2004. Bottle of insecticide was found at the place of incident. The postmortem was conducted and the report was received relating to cause of death. The accused were arrested. Accused no.1 is the husband of the deceased. The other accused are relatives of accused no.1. 4. Prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 Vithal Keskar is the complainant. He is brother of the deceased. P.W. Balasaheb Keskar is the uncle of deceased. P.W.3 Dilip Dhaigude is the panch witness for panchanama, P.W.4 Kalpana is the aunt of the deceased. P.W.5 Dropada Keskar is the mother of deceased, P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kosgaonkar is the medical oficer, P.W.7 Dattatraya Kadam is the panch witness for spot panchanama, P.W.8Kisan Karande is the police head constable, P.W.9 Dilip Dhumal, is the investigating oficer. 5. P.W.3 Dilip Dhaigude is the panch witness for panchanama, P.W.4 Kalpana is the aunt of the deceased. P.W.5 Dropada Keskar is the mother of deceased, P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kosgaonkar is the medical oficer, P.W.7 Dattatraya Kadam is the panch witness for spot panchanama, P.W.8Kisan Karande is the police head constable, P.W.9 Dilip Dhumal, is the investigating oficer. 5. Trial Court after analysing the evidence, had concluded that the prosecution has not been been able to prove the charges under Sec. 306 read with 34 of IPC and Sec. 498-A read with 34 of IPC. 6. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal and hence preferred this Appeal challenging the impugned judgment. 7. Learned APP submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and relied upon several documentary evidence. The Court had overlooked the evidence of witnesses. There is suficient evidence to prove the charges under Ss. 306 and 498-A of IPC. The deceased was continuously harassed by the accused. There was demand of articles. She was physically and mentally tortured. The last incident had occurred on 24/11/2004. The deceased was missing from house on 25/11/2004. She was found dead on 26/11/2004. She consumed insecticide, which had resulted in her death. The bottle of insecticide was found near her body. The victim had committed suicide within 3 to 4 years from her marriage. Sec. 113-A of Evidence Act could be invoked in the present case. The prosecution has adduced cogent evidence to prove the charges. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 clearly establish cruelty against the victim, which has compelled her to commit suicide. There was instigation/abetment at the instance of accused for the victim to commit suicide. There is no reason to discard the evidence of witnesses. Minor discrepancies in evidence does not afect the case of prosecution. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspectives. Hence, the judgment of acquittal is perverse and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that there is no reason to reverse the judgment of acquittal. Trial Court has assigned reasons for acquittal. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufers from serious infrmities. Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspectives. Hence, the judgment of acquittal is perverse and it has resulted in miscarriage of justice. 8. Learned advocate for the respondent submitted that there is no reason to reverse the judgment of acquittal. Trial Court has assigned reasons for acquittal. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses sufers from serious infrmities. There are major contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses with regards to the occurrence of events relied upon by the prosecution in support of the charge under Ss. 306 and 498- A of IPC. The complainant has roped in several accused which indicate that the case is a false implication. The evidence of witnesses indicate that all the articles were provided during the marriage as agreed upon both the parties. The witnesses has admitted that for one year, there was no demand of whatsoever nature and the victim was treated well. It is dificult to accept that thereafter the accused had subjected the victim to cruelty. The evidence of the witnesses does not inspire confdence. The prosecution is relying upon the incident of assault upon the victim on 24/11/2004. However, the version of the witnesses in that regard is contrary to each other. The contradictions relating to who assaulted the victim on 24/11/2004. Some of the witnesses does not even refer to the fact of slapping the deceased by the accused. Child was born out of the wedlock. The evidence discloses that the grievance of the deceased was that the accused no.1 was working as driver at Mumbai. He was not frequently visiting the matrimonial home. Accused no.1 was not taking her to Mumbai alongwith him. The evidence also discloses that both the sides had attended the function including the naming ceremony of the child born out of the wedlock of accused no.1 and the deceased. Thus, the ofence under Sec. 306 as well as 498-A of IPC was not proved beyond doubt. Merely on the basis of presumption under Sec. 113-A of the Evidence Act, the accused cannot be convicted for the ofence under Sec. 306 of IPC. There has to be evidence of cruelty. The prosecution has to make out the case for invoking the said presumption. The basic requirement to constitute ofence under Sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC are not established by the prosecution. Hence, the judgment of acquittal deserves to be confrmed. 9. There has to be evidence of cruelty. The prosecution has to make out the case for invoking the said presumption. The basic requirement to constitute ofence under Sec. 498-A and 306 of IPC are not established by the prosecution. Hence, the judgment of acquittal deserves to be confrmed. 9. I have perused the evidence of witnesses and the judgment of the trial Court. The law relating to adjudicating Appeal against acquittal is well settled. The judgment of acquittal can be interfered by the appellate Court in exceptional circumstances in the event there is miscarriage of justice, or that the judgment is contrary to the provisions of law or that the acquittal is delivered without appreciation of the evidence on record. Accused no.1 is the husband of the deceased. Accused no.2 is brother-in-law, accused nos.3 and 4 are mother-in-law and father-in-law. Accused no.5 is sister-in-law. The evidence of prosecution is not regarding her visit to house of victim. She is married woman having two children. The allegations were of general nature. There was no demand of any articles or dowry from the applicants side at the time of marriage. On the contrary, the evidence of the witnesses indicate that accused no.1 had provided gold ornaments to the deceased. 10. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. His evidence discloses that the victim was missing from 25/11/2004. At the time of performance of marriage the issue relating to give and take was not decided. The accused no.1 gave gold ornaments to the victim. He stated that there was incident of slapping the deceased on 24/11/2004. However, said version is not reflected in his statement under Sec. 161 of Cr.P.C. which amounts to omission. Victim was interested in accompanying accused no.1. Most of time, her husband was out as he was working as driver at Mumbai. There are contrary versions regarding incident of slapping. Victim is uncle of the victim. He does not refer to the incident of slapping the deceased on 24/11/2004. P.W.3 is the relatives of the complainant. He acted as panch witness for panchnama. There are omission relating to version about the harassment caused to the victim. P.W.4 is the aunt of the deceased. She has not referred to the incident of 24/11/2004. P.W.5 is the mother of victim. She has stated that mother-in-law of the deceased had slapped her which runs counter to the deposition of other witnesses. There are omission relating to version about the harassment caused to the victim. P.W.4 is the aunt of the deceased. She has not referred to the incident of 24/11/2004. P.W.5 is the mother of victim. She has stated that mother-in-law of the deceased had slapped her which runs counter to the deposition of other witnesses. P.W.6 is the medical oficer who had referred to cause of death. P.W.7 is the panch witness to the spot panchanama. Looking into the allegations reflected in the version of the witnesses, it appears that there were minor conflicts which cannot be termed as cruelty. The victim was residing with the accused for a period of three and half years. The defence of accused no.1 in statement under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. is that the victim wanted to visit her parents and on that count there was quarrel between accused no.1 and the deceased. Thereafter she was found missing. Search was conducted. Missing complaint was fled. The dead body of the victim was found below the tree in village. The trial Court had appreciated the evidence and arrived at the fnding that there is lack of evidence for convicting the accused for the ofences charged against them. In paragraph 14 of the judgment of the trial Court has appreciated the evidence of witnesses which indicate application of mind. It has been observed that in the cross-examination of P.W. 1 he has admitted that he had made the purchase of articles at the time of marriage and gifted utensils to the deceased. Cot and cushion were given. Invitees had observed the Rukhwat. There was no complaint regarding not providing articles in Rukhwat. There was no complaint for a period of one year after marriage. Child was delivered by the deceased in January 2003. Naming ceremony was performed. The deceased had never complained about feld work or household work. Till her death, accused no.1 was working at Bombay. The grievance of the deceased was that accused no.1 was not returning early in the house. In paragraph 27 of the judgment it has been observed that considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.2, it can be seen that though the witnesses has deposed about complaint of the victim regarding ill treatment by accused, there version has not corroborated by the mother of the deceased. P.W.5 and P.W.1 gave contrary admission. In paragraph 27 of the judgment it has been observed that considering the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.2, it can be seen that though the witnesses has deposed about complaint of the victim regarding ill treatment by accused, there version has not corroborated by the mother of the deceased. P.W.5 and P.W.1 gave contrary admission. Thus, their version regarding the alleged ill treatment and cruelty cannot be accepted. In paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment, it is observed that the death of victim was caused by insecticide. The medical oficer P.W.6 has stated that it cannot be inferred whether the death was accidental, suicidal or calpable. The defence has urged that the police did not investigate the matter to fnd out the truth and the circumstances as regards other possibilities causing death of deceased. Police did not take into consideration that there was long distance between the residential place of deceased and the spot of incident. 11. Thus, from the tenor of the observations of the trial Court and the fndings arrived at by the Court, it can be seen that the trial Court has scanned the evidence and by assigning reasons, acquitted the accused. I do not fnd any reason to take diferent view of the matter. In these circumstances, appeal must fail. 12. Hence, I pass the following order: :: O R D E R :: (i) Criminal Appeal No.1209 of 2007, stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly.