CRIMINAL v. District Kolhapur

Judgment

1. By Appeal against acquittal section Code Criminal Procedure, 1973, State Maharashtra exception Judgment 378 Order 22nd November 1988 passed learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, Sessions Case : 2 : No.143

1987. By Judgment Order Respondents/Accused prosecuted offence punishable under section 498A and section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted.

2. This another a a young married woman. The prosecution Drakashyani Accused No.1 Raosaheb. The marriage sometime

1982. The Accused No.2 brother Raosaheb Accused No.3 mother Accused No.1

2. The Drakashayani (hereinafter referred "the deceased") 22 years. The Accused frequently demanding a scooter father deceased Accused frequently beating deceased. As a result treatment, deceased herself

16th July

1987. While undergoing medical treatment expired. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses. P.W.1 Dr.R.D.Thorat conducted postmortem examination deceased. P.W.2 Ramgonda father deceased. P.W.3 Annagonda deceased. P.W.4 Smt.Sushila mother deceased. P.W.5 Maruti Powar Executive Magistrate recorded P.W.7 The : 3 : declaration deceased. P.W.6 Dr.Kailash Prabhu Medical Practitioner examined deceased before declaration recorded. Ravasaheb Patil learned Judge Investigating Officer. disbelieved evidence P.W.2 Ramgonda, father deceased. After considering evidence record, learned Judge prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the Accused.

3. Ms.P.H.Kantharia, learned A.P.P. heavily relied letter Exhibit 22 written deceased father endorsement Accused No.1 letter. She relied another letter Exh.23 deceased father. The learned A.P.P. relied letters written Accused No.1 father deceased. The learned Counsel further submitted endorsement Accused No.1 handwriting letter Exh.22 Respondent No.1 beaten deceased occasions. She submitted letter written Accused No.1 incident ill-treatment her, deceased likely something drastic therefore letter Accused called father : 4 : deceased deceased. She submitted evidence parents deceased sufficient except establish offence. She submitted holding accused established beyond reasonable doubt no other view could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record.

4. beaten Shri Sakhare, learned Senior Counsel appearing Respondents submitted letter Accused No.1 allegedly stated deceased written a earlier incident. He stated letters written Accused No.1 father-in-law clearly Accused father deceased enjoyed cordial relationship last. He relied declarations deceased Exh.33 Exh.39 deceased stated lighting making tea, border caught fire. After started shouting Accused Nos.2 3 kitchen started extinguishing fire. At Accused No.1-husband house. She deceased present stated father-in-law mother-in-law extinguished mother-in-law family members Dr. : 5 : Prabhu’s hospital Kolhapur. He stated declaration recorded before Special Executive Magistrate proved evidence. He stated stated the dying declarations no fault can be found with the impugned Judgment and Order.

5. For establishing ill-treatment deceased, prosecution examined P.W.2 Ramgonda, father deceased. He proved letters written deceased Accused No.1 evidence. He narrated alleged incidents cruelty. He stated deceased reporting incidents cruelty practiced Respondents. He narrated daughter ill-treated purpose demand a scooter Respondents family members. prosecution examined P.W.3 Anandgonda, The deceased. He general statements evidence regarding ill-treatment deceased. P.W.5 Sushila, mother deceased. She deposed letters received deceased. However, stated daughter personally told her anything about the demand for scooter and gold. : 6 :

6. P.W.5 Maruti Pawar, who recorded declaration deceased 17th July

1987. The declaration recorded Hospital Dr.Prabhu. He stated recorded declaration exactly version deceased sealed envelope him. In cross-examination stated Dr.Prabhu examined deceased a presence informed deceased position declaration. He stated questions deceased answers her, convinced deceased a position understand He stated informed deceased a Magistrate she must truth. stated having satisfied himself deceased pressure tutored anybody giving declaration, recorded obtained declaration. He stated impression deceased He declaration. He stated Dr.Prabhu examined signature declaration certifying deceased conscious condtiion declaration. In cross-examination, stated Dr.Prabhu present beginning declaration recorded. incident place, On her. : 7 : deceased stated preparing a At border a result caught fire. At mother-in-law father-in-law sitting stove. portion kitchen. Her husband present house. After started burning shouted. Immediately her in-laws came in the kitchen and tried to extinguish the fire.

7. P.W.6 Dr.Prabhu a Medical Practitioner hospital declaration Exh.33 recorded. He stated deceased history sustained injuries caught lighting a stove. He stated instructions Magistrate called informed Magistrate patient conscious. He stated cross-examination satisfied He examining deceased conscious a position declaration. stated thereafter declaration recorded. He however denied that the dying declaration was recorded in his presence.

8. The second declaration Exh.39. The declaration recorded Police Head : 8 : Constable Pathan. In declaration, deceased version declaration. Both declarations proved evidence completely destroy prosecution suicide committed deceased. The declarations demolish prosecution suicide a result ill-treatment accused father deceased complying demands accused. In declarations evidence Dr.Prabhu, learned Sessions Judge disbelieved evidence parents deceased deceased. The evidence ill-treatment deceased letter Exh.22 allegedly written deceased endorsement thereon However Respondent No.1/Accused No.1. letter indicate deceased ill-treated demand scooter complied father deceased. Moreover the said letter is allegedly written more than one year prior to the date of incident.

9. Even assuming evidence record, cannot learned Sessions Judge : 9 : evidence record. This being the position, in an appeal against acquittal it is not open for us to interfere.

10. Hence the Appeal is dismissed. (Smt.Ranjana Desai, J.) (Abhay S.Oka, J.)