The State of Maharashtra v. Kisan Maruti Jadhav & Ors.

By Appeal against acquittal, State Maharashtra exception Judgment 1st July 1988 passed learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Pune. By impugned Judgment Order, learned Sessions Judge acquitted : 2 : Respondents/Accused offence punishable sections 306, 498A, and 304B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

The deceased Padma eldest daughter Dinkar Manahdeo Kale (P.W.1), resident village Nimone, Taluka Shirur, District Pune. The deceased Padma married Accused No.3 Ramdas 7th

1978. The Accused No.1 father-in-law June deceased Padma. The Accused No.2 mother-in-law deceased Padma. Accuse Nos.3 5 Accused No.1. The prosecution daughter deceased Padma. It prosecution

smooth thereafter accused persons started putting illegal demands pressurising Padma amount articles father. Padma eldest daughter father, father fulfil demands. The accused demanded engine installing well. The father Padma purchased engine brother-in-law paying Rs.4000/- handed engine Accused. Thereafter Accused persons compelled Padma father amount purchasing a bullock. : 3 : With a prevent hardship Padma father spared bullock fixing Rs.900/-. The Accused No.1 bullock thereafter bother payment price. Lastly accused demanded a Bajra. When Padma father with demand, father a position supply assured a kharip season. Therefore, Padma handed matrimonial home. On floating situated Accused persons. After post-mortem handed Accused persons performed rites. The Police suspected some foul play and investigated the matter further.

The defence accused maintained Padma well. Padma school going children. Their case is that they are very well off and the allegation made against them are false.

The learned A.P.P. submitted repeated demands Accused deceased Padma established evidence. He stated demand accused deceased Padma : 4 : father situated property Respondent. He pointed reason disbelieve version father deceased. He invited attention postmortem nature ante-mortem injuries person deceased. He submitted established beyond reasonable a demand dowry made Accused deceased Padma deceased Padma treated cruelty. He criticized approach learned Sessions Judge and submitted that the impugned judgment and order is perverse.

Shri Kate, learned Counsel appearing Respondents supported impugned Judgment Order. He submitted considering evidence record prosecution proved. He submitted assuming different conclusion evidence record, interference permissible appeal against acquittal. He relied upon various Judgments to which reference will be made later on.

We carefully analysed submissions through evidence record. The evidence life, The a After : 5 : P.W.1 Dinkar father deceased discloses married deceased Padma a life. Thereafter Accused started making demands deceased Padma. incident demand narrated P.W.1 demand engine. He stated demand deceased Padma, purchased engine wife’s brother Rs.4000/-. He stated a period thereafter smooth Padma. Padma stated ill-treated Respondents demanding a Rs.1000/- purchasing a bullocks. He stated position amount. He stated one extra bullock at that time. He settled the price of the Bullock in presence of Padma at Rs.900/- and the bullock handed accused. He stated accused amount bullock. He admitted second incident demand bullocks Accused treating daughter nicely. He stated Padma a before incident stated subjected ill-treatment a demand Respondents-accused Bajra. He stated that he told Padma that he will be in a position to give : 6 : Bajra after some time.

In examination-in-chief itself P.W.1 stated brother conveyed information Padma floating Accused No.1. He stated that, however, time. At

3.00 p.m. Police village Police contacted towards the well and saw the dead body of Padma which was taken out of the well.

In cross-examination admitted Accused No.4-Jaisingh staying Loni-Kalbhor children 7 8 separated parents. He admitted Accused No.5 separated parents running a grocery shop. He further stated Accused agreed engine. He denied suggestion bullock demanded Accused. He admitted convicted consuming illicit liquor. He stated till his statement was recorded by the Police, he did not narrate any of the incidents to anybody.

P.W.2 Ramrao a panch witness offence panchanama. He stated : 7 : 45 a height 10 15 engine installed on the well for drawing water for irrigation and drinking purpose.

P.W.2 further stated incident called P.W.1 Dinkar deceased Padma present time. The witness further stated P.W.1 informed Padma demanding amount purchasing bullock. P.W.1 stated a position amount him. According P.W.2, P.W.1 informed desirous giving bullock therefore, requested P.W.2 settle bullock which was Accused No.1. He stated Rs.900/- Accused No.1 thereafter bullock Accused No.1 supposed bullock. At anything before him. In cross-examination stated northern side. He stated the well stones arranged sloping condition tapering level. He admitted that at some places inside wall is protruding. a : 8 :

P.W.3 Bhagchand Kale deposed called P.W.1 Dinkar. He stated Ramrao Kale Accused No.1 present. He stated a Rs.1000/- demanded Padma father-in-law P.W.1 unable amount. He stated P.W.1 handed bullock Accused No.1 and the price of the bullock was fixed at Rs.900/-.

P.W.4 Dr.Machindra Sonalkar performed postmortem examination deceased. examination-in-chief stated nature In ante-mortem injuries body. The injuries consist mostly abrasions. There C.L.W. temporal region having 1" x 1-1/2". cross-examination witness admitted In a person wall, having protruding boundary injuries referred postmortem report are not possible at one time but the injuries on the frontal region are possible.

P.W.5 PSI Shankar Shivaji Jadhav relevant attached Shirur Police Station. investigated offence recording statements He various witnesses. In cross-examination stated : 9 : village Nimore a distance 2 kms. the well. He stated that the well is not constructed and it is uneven in shape.

P.W.6 Pandurang Salage a Police Officer recorded missing report Accused No.1 Shirur Police Station 12th October

1987. He stated Accused No.1 informed a domestic quarrel between the deceased Padma and her husband on 10th October 1987.

Analysis evidence indicates marriage, deceased Padma complaint ill-treatment Accused. The P.W.1 purchased engine brother-in-law Rs.4000/- It pertinent prosecution neither examined brother-in-law produced any documents to show that the oil engine was purchased by P.W.1 from his brother-in-law. a

In controversy regarding bullock concerned, specific P.W.1 bullock handed Respondent No.1 fixing Rs.900/-. grievance Respondent No.1 His : 10 : bullock. It engine, P.W.1 amount engine accused. The incident demand a incident. It pertinent P.W.1 stated amongst Respondents ill-treated deceased Padma. The deposition P.W.1 alleged cruelty concerned, specified particular instances cruelty narrated daughter. It hardly evidence cruelty daughter. In abetment commit suicide concerned, evidence all. P.W.1 cross-examination admitted informed daughter Padma Only floating well, towards well. afternoon Police came, incident where Padma. As against this, earlier Accused No.1 a F.I.R. complaining daughter-in-law missing. So handing bullock concerned, Respondents demanded bullock supplied them. On contrary P.W.1 bullock Rs.900/- presence Respondent No.1 agreed same. : 11 : Considering nature difficult evidence P.W.1 conclusion offences punishable section 306, 482-A, 304-B section 34 of the IPC have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

We are, therefore, conclusions learned Sessions Judge possible conclusions evidence. Even assumed possible matter, a ground interference appeal against acquittal. Therefore, the Appeal against acquittal stands dismissed. (Smt. Ranjana Desai, J.) (Abhay S.Oka, J.)