High Court · 2025
Legal Reasoning
- 1 -IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.29 OF 2006Ranjit alias Raja s/o Sheshrao Gajmal,Age-29 years, Occu-Driver,R/o.Dasala, Tal.Sailu,Dist.Parbhani-- APPELLANTVERSUSThe State of Maharashtra -- RESPONDENT Mr.S.J.Salunke, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.S.B.Jadhav, APP for the respondent/State. ( CORAM : SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J. ) RESERVED ON : 18 SEPTEMBER 2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 03 OCTOBER 2025J U D G M E N T : 1. In this appeal against conviction, the appellant haschallenged the judgment and order dated 19.11.2005, passed by thelearned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions caseNo.40/2004 and praying this Court to acquit him by quashing andsetting aside the impugned judgment passed by the learned Trial Court.The appeal is admitted vide order dated 23.01.2006. khs/Sept.2025/29-2006
Legal Reasoning
- 2 -2. The case of the prosecution in short, is as under :-P.W.No.6 Janardhan Narayan Kedari, P.S.O., on the basis ofthe complaint lodged by one Bhagirath Gajmal, registered theaccidental death report (AD) (Exh.41) and handed over theinvestigation to the Police Head Constable Mr.Sawant. The AD came tobe registered on the basis of oral report stating therein that BhagirathGajmal, on 22.11.2003 at about 3.00 p.m., heard the noise andtherefore went alongwith Pandurang Gajmal and Ramesh Gajmal to thehouse of the appellant. He found the appellant in burnt condition andsmoke was coming from the house of the appellant. Upon going insidethe house, he found the wife of Rajabhau alias Ranjit Sheshrao Gajmalnamely Meera (deceased) in burnt condition. She was not making anymovements and she had died. 3.During the investigation of the aforesaid AD, P.W.No.2informant lodged the report on 23.11.2003 (Exh.24). In the saidreport, he has stated that his daughter Meera had married to theappellant 2 years before the incident. In the marriage, they had giftedRs.65,000/- cash and golden ring of 5 gm. A child is born out of thesaid wedlock to her, which is 9 months old. He has further stated thatkhs/Sept.2025/29-2006 - 3 -his daughter Meera was maintained properly only for a period of oneyear by the appellant. Thereafter, appellant started harassing her onaccount of bringing Rs.20,000/- for household expenses from herparents. At that time, he had paid Rs.20,000/- to his daughter andsent her to matrimonial house. After 2 months, again the appellant i.e.husband of the deceased started beating her on account of bringingRs.50,000/- from her parents. His daughter Meera thereafter came tohis house, but since he was not having the amount to pay, he sent herback to the matrimonial house. P.W.No.2 / informant has also stated inhis complaint that the appellant was addicted to liquor and having illicitrelations with accused No.1 / Parvati. On 22.11.2003, one ArchanaPrabhakar Gajmal asked them to come village Dasala immediately.Accordingly, they left for Dasala in a private jeep with relatives andreached village Dasala at 6.00 p.m. They found their daughter Meeradead and in burnt condition. Accordingly, P.W.No.2 has lodged thereport. 4.On the basis of the aforesaid report, Crime No.157/2003was registered with Selu Police Station, Dist. Parbhani for the offencepunishable u/s 498(A), 306 r/w 34 of the IPC against the appellant andkhs/Sept.2025/29-2006 - 4 -one Parvati Suryabhan Khandare/Accused No.1. After carrying out theinvestigation, the charge sheet came to be filed against the accusedpersons and since both the accused pleaded not guilty, therefore theycame to be tried by the learned Sessions Court. Accordingly, chargewas framed at Exh.10 for the offence punishable u/s 498-A and 306r/w 34 of the IPC against both the accused persons. During the trial,prosecution has examined in all 7 witnesses. After hearing, the learned1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani was pleased to passjudgment, thereby acquitting accused No.1 Parvati of the offences u/s498-A and 306 of the IPC, however convicted the appellant for theoffence punishable u/s 498-A, 306 of the IPC and sentenced to sufferimprisonment. Hence, the appellant has approached this Court.5.On 23.01.2006, this appeal was admitted and hisapplication for suspension of sentence Cri.M.A.No.101/2006 wasallowed and his sentence was suspended.6.Heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and thelearned APP. khs/Sept.2025/29-2006 - 5 -7.The learned Advocate for the appellant has pointed outfrom the record that on the basis of the depositions and material, nooffence either u/s 306 or 498-A is made out against the appellant. Hesubmitted that P.W.No.2 and 3 are the parents of the deceased. Theyhave stated that deceased Meera, after marriage, had been to theirhouse and narrated about the alleged demand of Rs.20,000/- and thesame was paid to her. Thereafter, she was sent back to the matrimonialhouse. Again the appellant had asked for Rs.50,000/- and the saidamount was not paid to her and after giving understanding, she wassent back to the house of the appellant. They have also stated that theappellant is having illicit relationship with accused No.1 Parvatibai.The learned Advocate for the appellant submits that on going throughthe testimonies of the witnesses, the appellant can not be held guilty forthe offence punishable u/s 306 or 498-A of the IPC. According to him,for proving offence punishable u/s 306 of the IPC, the prosecution isrequired to establish that the harassment or harsh behaviour of theappellant meted out to deceased to such an extent that she had noother option than to commit suicide. According to the learned Advocatefor the appellant, the prosecution is relying on the evidence of P.W.No.5Archana Gajmal, who is relative on both the sides, i.e. deceased as wellkhs/Sept.2025/29-2006 - 6 -as the appellant. Her evidence goes to show that she had heard aboutthe illicit relationship between accused Nos. 1 and 2 from the village.Her evidence is herasay evidence and cannot be considered forestablishing the illicit relationship between accused No.1 ParvatiKhandare and the appellant and therefore it is hard to believe thatbecause of this illicit relationship between them, the deceased hadcommitted suicide. 8.The learned Advocate Mr.Salunke for the appellant has alsosubmitted that the allegations against the appellant regarding thecruelty, there are no specific allegations against the appellant in theevidence brought before the Court by the prosecution side. Thewitnesses have not deposed as regards specific instances, events ofharassment and cruelty against the appellant. All the witnesses havedeposed in general that the appellant has harassed the deceased forbringing money from her parents. He has also submitted thatwhenever deceased Meera had come to the house of the parents forgetting money, she has never complained of any illicit relationship ofthe appellant and any illtreatment at the hands of appellant. As such,the theory of the prosecution as regards illicit relationship andkhs/Sept.2025/29-2006 - 7 -harassment at the hands of accused persons cannot be accepted andthus prayed for acquittal of the appellant. 9.Per contra, the learned APP strongly opposed the appealand submitted that the prosecution has established it’s case before thelearned Trial Court beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore the learnedTrial Court has rightly convicted the appellant u/s 498-A and 306 of theIPC, and as such no interference is required in the said judgment andtherefore praying for maintaining the said judgment as it is. Accordingto the learned APP, the evidence before the learned Sessions Court wasvery much corroborative to convict the appellant. 10.The learned APP further submitted that the prosecution hasexamined P.W.No.1 Rameshchandra Sharma at Exh.17, who is theMedical Officer, Civil Hospital, who has performed the post mortemexamination of deceased. As per his report, the deceased hadsustained as many as 94% burn injuries and deceased had died due tothe same. He further stated that the appellant was also admitted to thehospital for his 20% burn injuries and his medical certificate is atExh.21. The dead body of the deceased was found in the living room/khs/Sept.2025/29-2006 - 8 -bedroom of the house.11.It reveals from the record that Bhagirath Gajmal was thefirst person to reach on the spot after getting information from P.W.No.5Archana Gajmal. However, the prosecution has not examined him.Alongwith him, Pandurang Gajmal and Ramesh Gajmal also reachedthe spot of incident. They also have not been examined, nor statementsof the said witnesses were brought on record by the InvestigatingOfficer. 12.It reveals from the record that the appellant had alsosustained burn injuries and he had sustained those burns while savingthe life of his wife deceased Meera. It has also been pointed out fromthe record that the appellant was having a kerosene shop at his houseand the appellant is having good financial position, and therefore thecase of the prosecution that he was demanding to deceased Meera forbringing money from her parents, cannot be accepted easily. P.W.Nos.2and 3 have stated that accused harassed deceased for bringing anamount of Rs.20,000/- from them and therefore the deceased had beento their house asking for Rs.20,000/-. But the prosecution has notkhs/Sept.2025/29-2006 - 9 -established the said fact by adducing concrete evidence to prove thesaid demand. Since there is no specific allegations as regards demands,no particular dates have been mentioned / stated as regards thoseinstances of demand and harassment, therefore it is very difficult toaccept the case of the prosecution on the basis of such evidence.13.In order to consider the facts to be constituting anilltreatment or harassment as contemplated under section 498-A of theIPC, it is necessary that the witnesses testify the said harassment beforethe Court in particular manner. In this case, the prosecution witnessesfailed to narrate the nature of illtreatment or harassment, due to whichthe deceased committed suicide, as her last option. All the witnesses ofprosecution have maintained silence over the nature of illtreatment andharassment. They also did not complain to police whenever they cameto know bout such alleged harassment. Testimonies from the parentsof deceased does not indicate any persistent harassment. There is nomaterial to prove that the appellant’s conduct frustrated the deceasedhopes or expectation or same created hostile environment leading herto take extreme step.In Gurucharan Singh Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2017) 1khs/Sept.2025/29-2006 - 10 -SCC 433, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the proof of willful conductactuating the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury ordanger to life, limb or health, whether mental or physical is the sinequa non for entering a finding of cruelty against the persons charged. 14.The prosecution tried to establish their case on the basis ofalleged cruelty. The deceased had committed suicide and the appellantalleged to have abeted the deceased to commit suicide. The law onthis point is very much clear that unless and until the accused hadextended harassment to such an extent that the deceased had no otheroption than to commit suicide, only in that case, it can be said that theaccused has committed the crime. 15.The prosecution, after examination of the relevantwitnesses, virtually failed to bring the sufficient evidence before thisCourt thereby warranting conviction u/s 498, 306 of the IPC. Thus theimpugned judgment of Sessions Court, therefore, is not maintainablebeing illegal and improper. 16.In view of the above, I pass the following order :-khs/Sept.2025/29-2006
Decision
- 11 -[a]The appeal is allowed. [b]The impugned judgment and order dated 19.11.2005 passed bythe learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani in SessionsCase No.40/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside and the appellant isacquitted of the offence punishable u/s 498-A and 306 of the IPC.[c]Record and proceeding of Sessions Case No.40/2004, receivedfrom the District Court, Parbhani, be sent back to the concerned Court. ( SUSHIL M. GHODESWAR, J.)khs/Sept.2025/29-2006