Anand v. The State of Maharashtra

first post mortem examination had been conducted. Since victim's family was not satisfied after the first post mortem examination, another post mortem examination had been conducted. The Forensic Science Laboratory reported that there was no poison in viscera. Ultimately, Autopsy Surgeon certified cause of death as extensive burns. 3

3. Police recorded statements of witnesses, performed necessary panchanamas and on completion of investigation, sent charge sheet to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Niphad, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nashik. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged the appellant and other five co-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since they pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all six witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the accused persons. After considering their evidence, in the light of defence of denial, the learned Judge acquitted all the accused persons of the charges leveled but convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before this Court.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both 4 the learned counsel I have gone through the evidence on record. PW-1 Dr. Sadanand Vasudeo Nayak is a Surgeon, who performed the second post mortem examination. He proved his notes of post mortem examination at Exhibit 22, the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory at Exhibit 24 and also his final cause of death Certificate at Exhibit 25. Among other things, he stated in his cross examination that the death had occurred between 02:00 to 04:00 p.m. after food was taken.

5. PW-2 Madhav Kisan Kale is victim's father, who gave a report. He stated that on 7th December, 1991, he received a letter from the victim. A copy of this letter is at Exhibit 27. It does not contain any grievance. She only stated that she wanted to convey something urgent and secret to him. He stated that he sent his brother Appa after receipt of letter and Appa returned back stating that there was no problem at victim's house. At that time, the victim told Appa that the problem with the appellant had been sorted out. He stated that two days prior to the 5 incident, victim had visited their village which is just four Kms away from that of the appellant. PW-2 Madhav had not met the victim on that day. He stated that his wife and other daughter reported to him that the victim had been starved for three days. He is categorical that he was not told about illicit intimacy of appellant with any one. He stated in his cross examination that on 25th December, 1991, he had narrated about illicit intimacy to police but police did not record it. He had also claimed that he had told police about appellant not providing food to victim which too police had not recorded. It was suggested to him that since the victim had come to their house without obtaining permission from her in-laws, they had asked the victim to go back and it was this which annoyed the victim leading to her committing suicide.

6. PW-3 Rangnath Kisan Kale, uncle of the victim, stated that on 19th December, 1991, i.e. a day before the incident, he had visited victim's place and he had learnt that there was 6 some bickering in the family. He claimed that he had been told by the victim about intimacy of the appellant with appellant's brother-in-law. In the cross examintion, he first admitted having not told the police about visit to the appellant's place on 19th December, 1991 but changed his version and stated that he has so stated, but could not explain as to why this was not to be found in his statement.

7. PW-4 Pramila Madhav Kale is victim's step mother. Curiously, this witness stated in her examination-in-chief that in fact, Shobha had no grievance against her husband or in-laws at any time. She stated that victim told her about illicit intimacy of the appellant in Shobha's last visit two days before the incident, as also the fact that Shobha had been starved. The witness stated that after Shobha came to her house, accused No.1 and his brother came. She took them home and served them Tea etc. and thereafter, the victim left with them. She claimed that her husband had not come before 7 Shobha left her village. She admitted that she had not told the police that the victim had reported to her about victim's being starved. She claimed that she had told the police about victim's telling her about illicit relation with the appellant but could not explain as to why this was not to be found in her statement.

8. PW-5 Meerabai Madhavrao Kale, victim's elder sister, who was present when victim visited the house on 18th December, 1991 claimed that the victim told her that she was starved for three to four days because she witnessed the illicit relationship between the appellant and her brother-in-law. Curiously, she does not state anything about her mother's coming home and treating in-laws of victim with Tea etc.. In her cross examination, she denied having stated to police that the victim had come to parents house just before she returned and that her mother, grand father, grand mother and father arrived, after Shobha had left with her in-laws. She contradicted police from 'A' to 'C' of her 8 statement. She claimed to have told police about victim's reporting illicit intimacy of the appellant but could not explain as to why it was not in her police statement.

9. PW-6 API Dilipsing Ganpatsing Rajput, who conduced investigation, proved all these contradictions in the statement of Meera and was categorical that none of the witnesses had stated before him that the victim had conveyed to the witnesses that the appellant was having illicit intimacy with appellant's brother-in-law or victim was starved because victim came to know of it.

10. The learned counsel for the appellant wondered as to how the learned Additional Sessions Judge could hold the appellant guilty on the basis of material which surfaced only at the trial and which none of the witnesses had conveyed to the police. It is indeed strange that the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to have accepted improvements made by the 9 witnesses at the trial forgetting that the witnesses had not come out with any such story in course of investigation. It is also strange that the story of starvation of the victim, which the learned Judge seems to have accepted, was belied by the evidence of PW-1 Dr.Sadanand Nayak and yet the learned Additional Sessions Judge seems to have accepted that version. True the victim did commit suicide or died of burn injuries, but that does not imply that the fault must lie with the mother-in-law. Since the witnesses had absolutely nothing to state about illicit intimacy/starvation in their statements before the police and particularly, when PW-4 Pramila Kale was categorical even in her examination-in- chief that the victim had no grievance against her in-laws, the learned Additional Sessions Judge could not have held the appellant guilty. The conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code is thoroughly unjustified. 10

11. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. Conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal and sentence of simple imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.200/- or in default simple imprisonment for one month and simple imprisonment for two years with a fine of Rs.200/- or in default simple imprisonment for one month is set aside. She is acquitted of the said charges. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)