CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION v. The State of Maharashtra )

Judgment

-

1. The appellants are original accused nos.1 to 4 respectively. They were tried in the Court of 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No.162 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with section 34 of IPC. By his judgment and order dated : 2 :

11.12.1995 the learned Sessions Judge found them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC. On that count he sentenced them to suffer RI for one year each and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to suffer further RI for 3 months each. The accused were further found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. On that count they were sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, they were to suffer further RI for six months each. The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The accused were acquitted under Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the appellants have preferred this appeal. For the sake of convenience, I shall refer to the appellants in this judgment as per their status in the trial as A-1 to A-4 respectively.

2. It would be advantageous to begin with the narration of facts of the case. According to the prosecution the daughter of Complainant (PW 1) Maruti Sathe was married to A1. She was the

daughter of Maruti Sathe from his first wife Sakhubai who is the sister of A3 and A4. A2 and A3 are parents of A1, whereas A4 is the brother of A2. According to the prosecution after the marriage the : 3 : accused maintained deceased Sangeeta well for a period of one year. Later on, they started beating and ill-treating her as they wanted an amount of Rs.5,000/- from her father. They used to beat and ill-treat her and send her to the house of the Complainant. Whenever deceased Sangeeta used to come to her maternal house, she used to talk about the harassment meted out to her as well as illegal demand of money. At the time of Gudipadava festival prior to the incident in question, the deceased had been to her maternal house. At that time, she had informed the Complainant that she was harassed and ill-treated by the accused. The Complainant and his brother sent her back after trying to convince her. According to the prosecution on 13.4.1994 the Complainant was present in his house. At about 9.00 P.M. one wireman by name Maruti Shinde of village Chandoor came to his house and informed him that at about 5.00 P.M. there was a quarrel between the deceased and her husband i.e. A1 and at that time A1 beat her and since then the deceased was missing and therefore, he had come to the house of the Complainant to search for her. The Complainant told him that the deceased had not come to his house. Then Maruti Shinde went away. The Complainant and his relatives also went to village Chandoor to search for the deceased but the deceased could not be found. Ultimately, after mid-night on 14.4.1994 at 2.40 A.M. the Complainant lodged missing report : 4 : at Hupari police station. He mentioned in the said report that there was a quarrel between the deceased and her husband and that because of the harassment caused to her by her inlaws she had left the house. The said missing report was registered at Serial No.4/94. It is at Exhibit-18.

3. It appears that thereafter the search of the deceased was continued and during the search, on the well of one Lagonda Patil situate in Gat no.762, they found one Chumbal (ring of cloth) and one Butti (basket). The dead body of the deceased Sangeeta was found in the said well. The matter was then reported to Police Patil of village Chandoor i.e. PW 3 Raygonda Lagonda Patil. The Police Patil lodged his report on 15.4.1994 at 7.30 A.M. at Hupari police station. It is at Exhibit-22. The police then registered A.D.No.7/94. Inquest panchanama and spot panchanama were prepared. Post mortem was conducted on the deceased. Post mortem notes are at Exhibit-15. The cause of death is shown as "Asphyxia as a result of drowning". The dead body of the deceased was then handed over to her relatives from her maternal side. Funeral ceremony was performed on the dead body at her maternal place. Thereafter (PW 1) Maruti Sathe lodged his complaint which is at Exhibit-19. The complaint is registered on 15.4.1994 at 7.45 P.M. On the basis of this complaint offences under : 5 : Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with section 34 of IPC were registered against the accused. After completion of the investigation, the accused came to be charged as aforesaid.

4. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. Their case is that they are involved in a false case with an intention to extract money from them.

5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. The prosecution inter alia examined PW-1 Maruti Sathe, the Complainant and PW-2 Savala Sathe, the uncle of the deceased. The prosecution also examined neighbours and villagers of the deceased. After perusing the evidence on record the learned Sessions Judge was of the view that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. He therefore, convicted the accused as aforesaid.

6. I have heard the learned Counsel Mr.Ingawale appearing for the appellants/accused at some length. I have also heard the learned APP Ms.Deshmukh. With the assistance of the learned Counsel, I have gone through the depositions of the witnesses and the record of the case.

7. Mr.Ingawale the learned Counsel for the appellants/accused contended that the learned : 6 : Sessions Judge erred in convicting the accused. He submitted that there is total absence of cogent and credible evidence. He pointed out that the entire evidence is in the nature of hear-say evidence. He submitted that it is apparent from the evidence on record that Sakhubai-first wife of the Complainant was staying with the accused after the Complainant got married again. The evidence on record clearly indicates that Sakhubai and her daughter Sangeeta were all along staying with the accused and infact Sakhubai got the deceased married to her brother’s son i.e. A1. Under these circumstances, it is inconceivable that the accused would ill-treat the daughter of their sister and drive her to suicide. The story of the prosecution is inherently improbable. He submitted that PW-1 Maruti Sathe has stated that one Maruti Shinde came to him and told him that there was a quarrel between the deceased and her husband and since then the deceased is not traceable. He contended that it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to examine Maruti Shinde. The learned Counsel contended that the evidence of PW-1 Maruti Sathe that Maruti Shinde told him that the deceased and her husband had a quarrel is in the nature of hear-say evidence and it cannot be relied upon. In this connection he relied Bhugdomal upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Bhugdomal Bhugdomal Gangaram & Ors. V/s. The State of Gujarat, Gangaram & Ors. V/s. The State of Gujarat, Gangaram & Ors. V/s. The State of Gujarat, O R D E R

1. The conviction and sentence of accused no.4 Dagadu Gunda Shinde under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC is quashed and set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges. He is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled.

2. The conviction and sentence of accused no.2 Ganapati Gunda Shinde and accused no.3 Sou.Shalan Ganapati Shinde under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC is quashed and set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges. However, their conviction under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC is confirmed. Accused nos.2 & 3 were sentenced for offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC for one year each. I am informed that they were in jail for a period of 94 days each. Considering their advanced age for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC, they are sentenced to the sentence already undergone by them. : 19 :

3. The conviction and sentence of accused no.1 Sadashiv Ganpati Shinde under Section 498-A read with section 34 of the IPC is confirmed. He is convicted for offence under Section 306 of the IPC simplicitor and is sentenced for two years RI for the same. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Accused no.1 is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail. Needless to say that he will get set off for the period already undergone by him. Appeal is disposed off accordingly. (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J) (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J) (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J) : 20 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6 OF 1996 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6 OF 1996 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.6 OF 1996

1. Sadashiv Ganapati Shinde )

2. Ganapati Gunda Shinde )

3. Sou.Shalan Ganapati Shinde )

4. Dagadu Gunda Shinde )..Appellants (Orig.Accused) Versus The State of Maharashtra )..Respondent ---- Mr.Shekhar A.Ingawale for the Appellants. Mrs.M.M.Deshmukh APP for the State. ---- Coram : Smt.Ranjana Desai,J Coram : Smt.Ranjana Desai,J Coram : Smt.Ranjana Desai,J Date : 14th August, 2007. . For the reasons separately recorded in the Judgment, I proceed to pass the following order :- O R D E R

1. The conviction and sentence of accused no.4 Dagadu Gunda Shinde under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and under Section 306 read with 34 of the IPC is quashed and set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges. He is on bail. His bail bond stands cancelled. : 21 :

2. The conviction and sentence of accused no.2 Ganapati Gunda Shinde and accused no.3 Sou.Shalan Ganapati Shinde under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC is quashed and set aside. They are acquitted of the said charges. However, their conviction under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC is confirmed. Accused nos.2 & 3 were sentenced for offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC for one year each. I am informed that they were in jail for a period of 94 days each. Considering their advanced age for the offence under Section 498-A read with 34 of the IPC, they are sentenced to the sentence already undergone by them.

3. The conviction and sentence of accused no.1 Sadashiv Ganpati Shinde under Section 498-A read with section 34 of the IPC is confirmed. He is convicted for offence under Section 306 of the IPC simplicitor and is sentenced for two years RI for the same. Substantive sentences shall run concurrently. Accused no.1 is on bail. He shall surrender to his bail. Needless to say that he will get set off for the period already undergone by him. Appeal is disposed off accordingly. (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J) (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J) (Smt.Ranjana Desai,J)