High Court
Facts
crivn129.23-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 129 OF 20231.Alka w/o Popat Jadhav2.Sonali @ Sonabai Atish Ubale3.Deepali Rakesh Kamble4.Swati @ Rupali Datta Bhingardive ...Applicants versusThe State of Maharashtra...Respondent ...Advocate for Applicant : Mr. Rahul R. KarpeAPP for Respondent: Mr. Mukesh K. Goyanka ….. CORAM : SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. DATED : 28th MARCH, 2024. PER COURT :- 1.This application is preferred against the order dated10.01.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagarbelow Exh.20 in Sessions case No. 189 of 2021. It was anapplication for discharge under Section 227 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (for short the Cr.P.C.).2.Brief facts are as under:- a)The informant Sau. Sangita Ashok Salve, the mother ofdeceased Rajni, lodged a report that her daughter, Rajni got marriedwith Ravindra Popat Jadhav on 16.12.2018. The husband and crivn129.23-2- father-in-law of Rajni were frequently demanding some amount forconstruction of house and used to threaten her that they will expelher from their house and send her to her parental house. Theyexpelled Rajni from their house. After convincing her husband andfather-in-law she was sent back for cohabitation. On 7.8.2020, theinformant made a phone call to her daughter Rajni on Mobile No.9987157764. That time, she said that now she is fed up with theharassment caused to her by her husband and father-in-law. Theybeaten her and also again threatened to expel her from the house.That time, she stated that she will come to the informant but theinformant convinced her. On that day, at about 6.00 to 6.30 p.m. thehusband of Rajni made a phone call that she had consumed poisonand she is admitted in Sonar Hospital, near Kinetic Chowk,Ahmednagar. Then they all went there. Rajni was unconscious. Shedied on 10.8.2020. A report was lodged against the husband andfather-in-law of Rajni on the second day. b)Thereafter, after a period of approximately four months,supplementary statement of the informant was recorded, in which shehas stated that the applicants who are sister-in-laws of Rajni werealso used to insult Rajni in derogatory language on this or that count.Rajni used to tell that fact to the informant. However, at that time, theinformant's relatives convinced her not to mention the names ofsister-in-laws and mother-in-law in the report and therefore, she didnot allege against them. crivn129.23-3- c)The learned trial court while passing the impugned orderhas held that there is prima facie strong evidence against theseapplicants and the application was rejected. 3.Learned advocate for the applicants submits that there isdelay in recording the supplementary statement of the informant andafterthought the allegations are made in it against these applicants.The applicant No.1, who is mother-in-law of Rajni and there is nospecific allegation against her. As far as applicant Nos. 2 Sonali isconcerned, she is married in the year 2005 and is residing at Bhingar,Ahmednagar. Applicant No.3 is married in the year 2009 andresiding at Mumbai. Applicant No.4 is married in the year 2010 andshe is residing at Mumbai. He pointed out the supplementarystatement which is vague and no specific allegation of demand andits particulars are mentioned in the report, supplementary statementas well as in the statements of relatives of informant or witnesses.The abetment to commit suicide is not found in the report orstatements of witnesses. 4.Learned A.P.P. for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that names of the applicants are mentionedin the supplementary statement. Their role is specific. They haveinsulted the daughter of the informant Rajni. There is prima faciestrong evidence against these applicants. It is lastly prayed to reject
Legal Reasoning
crivn129.23-4- the revision application.5.Perused the charge sheet, particularly report andsupplementary statement of the informant. To establish the essentialingredients of Section 227 of Cr.P.C. that there is no sufficient groundfor proceeding against the applicants-accused, learned advocate hasplaced reliance upon the judgment of this court in the case ofShrivina Vs. State of Goa and others, reported inMANU/MH/1878/2019, decided on 9.7.2019, in which in para 19, it isobserved that:-“19.In the case of Yogesh cited (supra) in para 16, theHon'ble Supreme court observed thus: “16.It is trite that the words “not sufficient ground forproceeding against the accused” appearing in the sectionpostulate exercise of judicial mind on the part of the judge to thefacts of the case in order to determine whether a case for trial hasbeen made out by the prosecution. However, in assessing thisfact, the judge has the power to sift and weigh the material for thelimited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie caseagainst the accused has been made out. The test to determine aprima face case depends upon the facts of each case and in thisregard it is neither feasible nor desirable to lay down a rule ofuniversal application. By and large, however, if two views areequally possible and the judge is satisfied that the evidenceproduced before him gives rise to suspicion only as distinguishedfrom grave suspicion, he will be fully within his right to dischargethe accused. At this stage, he is not to see as to whether the trialwill end in conviction or not. The board test to be applied is crivn129.23-5- whether the materials on record, if unrebutted, make a convictionreasonably possible.” 6.In the supplementary statement recorded after four monthsof the alleged report, in which it is mentioned that the informant wasconvinced by her relatives not to mention the names of all theseapplicants in the report. Even in the supplementary statement thoughit is mentioned that when applicant Nos. 2 to 4 used to come forsome festival, it is alleged that they used to insult Rajni, however,there is no specific allegation as to when they have harassed Rajniby demanding alleged amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for making remainingconstruction of house. This important fact alongwith delay caused inrecording the supplementary statement is seriously and reasonablydoubtful. There is no such prima facie material against theseapplicants to proceed with the trial. Thus, there are no sufficientgrounds to proceed against the applicants. The application therefore,deserves to be allowed. The impugned order passed by the trial courtdated 10.01.2023 below Exh.20 in Sessions Case No. 189 of 2021deserves to be set aside. The applicants deserve to be dischargedunder Section 227 of the Cr.P.C.. Hence, the following order:-O R D E RI.Criminal Revision Application is allowed.II.The order dated 10.01.2023 passed by the AdditionalSessions Judge, Ahmednagar below Exh.20 in Sessions crivn129.23-6- Case No. 189 of 2021 is quashed and set aside.III.The applicant Nos. 1 to 4 are discharged from Sessions CaseNo. 189 of 2021. (SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J.) rlj/