High Court · 2024

Legal Reasoning

Cri.Appeal.648.2005-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.648 OF 20051.Laxman S/o. Bhaurao Shelke, Age : 27 yers, Occu. : Agri., 2.Bhaurao S/o. Yadavrao Shelke,Age : 55 years, Occu. : Agri., 3.Dwarkabai w/o. Bhaurao Shelke,Age : 45 years, Occu. : Agri., All R/o. Alamgaon, Tq. Ambad, Dist. Jalna.… Appellants.VersusThe State of Maharashtra… Respondent. ….Ms.Shilpa Aurangabadkar h/f. Mr. Satej Jadhav, Advocate for AppellantsMr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent – State.…. CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. DATED :26 SEPTEMBER 2024 JUDGMENT :- 1.Appellants have taken exception to judgment and orderdated 31.08.2005 recording their guilt for offence punishable undersection 498-A Indian Penal Code (IPC) in judgment passed by 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No. 7 of 2001. Cri.Appeal.648.2005-2- PROSECUTION CASE IN TRIAL COURT IS AS UNDER 2.Laxman, father of deceased Meera, lodged report Exh.57alleging that, his daughter was married with appellant no.1 on28.04.1999. After 5 to 6 months of proper cohabitation, his daughterwas ill treated by husband and in-laws. When she came for Diwalifestival, she reported about harassment and ill treatment. Accusedpersons also took away her ornaments and mortgaged the same.News of Meera suffering burn was received, therefore, they went tothe hospital, where she gave oral dying declaration that husband beather for watching T.V. and therefore she immolated herself. Shesuccumbed to the burns, after which Exh.57 was entertained andcrime was registered. After completion of investigation, accused persons werecharge-sheeted for commission of offence under sections 498-A, 306r/w section 34 IPC and they were tried by 4th Ad-hoc AdditionalSessions Judge, Jalna, who on appreciating the prosecution evidence,acquitted all accused from charges under section 306 IPC, butconvicted them under section 498-A IPC. Said judgment and order dated 31.08.2005 is nowassailed before this court by filing instant appeal. Cri.Appeal.648.2005-3- SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of Appellant :- 3.Learned counsel for appellant pointed out thatprosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges. She pointedout that, except family members, there is no other independentevidence. She pointed out that, there is no iota of evidence in supportof charge under section 498-A IPC. That, learned trial court hasalready acquitted accused from charge under section 304-B, 306 r/wsection 34 IPC. She further pointed out that, general, vague andomnibus allegations are made by stating that there was ill treatmentand harassment, but which of the accused ill treated and in what formthere was harassment, has not come on record. She further pointedout that, witnesses are not consistent in spite of being close relatives.She pointed out that, though dying declarations were said to berecorded, but the same are not brought on record by investigationmachinery while charge-sheeted appellant. She further point out that,surprisingly even very Investigating Officer has not been examined inthe trial court. Consequently, she questions judgment of convictionrecorded for offence under section 498-A IPC and prays to allow theappeal. Cri.Appeal.648.2005-4- On behalf of Respondent – State :- 4.Learned APP while opposing the appeal, pointed out that,barely after few months of marriage, husband and in-laws maltreateddeceased. That, when she came for festival, she reported it to herparents and uncle. That, they are all examined and they have dulydeposed and supported each other. He pointed out that, before shesuffered burns, husband had beaten her. That, learned trial court hascorrectly appreciated the evidence and has rightly convicted husbandand in-laws for 498-A IPC and so he prays to not to disturb suchfindings. EVIDENCE ON RECORD5.Role and status of prosecution witnesses is asunder : PW1 Laxman is the informant father. PW2 Rambhau is brother of PW1 and uncle of Meera. PW3 Krishnabai, pancha to inquest panchanama (Exh.60) PW4 Padmabai is mother of deceased. PW5 Balaji neighbour did not support prosecution. PW6 Devidas pancha to spot panchanama did not support prosecution. Cri.Appeal.648.2005-5- 6.Here, there is evidence of informant father PW1 Laxman,uncle PW2 Rambhau and mother PW4 Padmabai. Ground raised inappeal is that witnesses are not consistent and are not lendingsupport to each other. Consequently, substance of the evidence ofthese three witnesses, which is of significance is required to bereproduced :- 7. PW1 Laxman in his evidence at Exh.56 deposed as under:“The place of the accused is Alamgaon. Meera was treatednicely for 5 to 6 months. Thereafter, there was ill treatmentto her. She had come for Diwali. When I asked her about herornaments, she started that those were mortgaged. Whenshe asked them to redeem then her parents-in-law started illtreating her. Her father-in-law had come to take her, thenshe went along with him. Then, I brought her at Shivratri,and then she stated me that when I had asked them aboutornaments, they started to ill treatment. Thereafter, herfather came to take her. But, she was not ready to got withhim. But, we pacified her and send her with her father-in-law. After one month, I received the message. My brothercame to me and he stated that my daughter is burnt andadmitted to hospital. Then, we all came to the hospital.Then, I saw her in burn position. In the hospital, she statedme that she was harassed, and so she herself burn her, bytaking rockel on her person. She was in the hospital for 5 – 6days and then died. Then, I came to the police station andlodged the report. It was reduced into writing by police. Itwas read over to me and then I signed. It is at Exh.57.”While under cross, informant admitted that, accusedpersons were present in the hospital and it is they who had admitted Cri.Appeal.648.2005-6- her. They were available in the hospital for 5 to 6 days. There waspolice chowky in the hospital and police also met him. He candidlyadmitted that since 27.5.2000 to 02.06.2000, he did not lodge report. Following omissions are brought in paragraph 3 of cross:- Accused persons treated Meera nicely 5 to 6 months andthereafter ill treatment started; when Meera had came for Diwali shestated that when he asked to redeem the mortgage of ornaments,then the appellant also ill treated her; when she was brought forShivratri, he had asked accused to redeem the ornaments and thenalso accused ill treated her; she also stated that she got on fire due toharassment of accused. Witness has admitted that, such text is notfinding place in the FIR.8.PW2 Rambhau in his evidence at Exh.58 deposed asunder : “The complainant is my real brother. The deceased Meerawas his daughter. She had married on 28.04.1999 withLaxman Shelke. She was treated nicely for 5 to 6 months.My brother had brought her at Diwali. I met her then, shestated that her mother-in-law scold her. I asked about itand then she stated that these are mortgaged. After Diwaliher father-in-law took her. She was brought to Shivratri,then we asked about her ornaments. Then, she stated thataccused had beaten her and there is harassment to me. Her Cri.Appeal.648.2005-7- father-in-law came to Samartha Sahakari Sugar Factory andasked me the help of Rs.25,000/-. He demanded it, forrunning the electricity shop. I could not pay and expressaccordingly. After Gudi Padwa Meera had come to ourplace and then we enquired about the ornaments. Meerawas asked Rs.25,000/- by the accused persons, as I came toknow from her, she was harassed for that, and was sent toour place. On 27.05.2000 I received wire-less from Jalnathat Meera has burnt, and to start quick. Then, I came tothe house and we 4 went to Jalna. I saw her lying on thecot in burnt condition. When we asked she stated that inthat night she watch the T.V. On account of that herhusband Laxman beat her. Her husband stated that, if youare found of watching T.V. you take it from your father. If Iallowed you to watch then you would elope with anybody.She did not sleep at that night and due to harassment by theaccused she poured the rockel on her person and set fire toherself. These accused are before court today.”While under cross, he admitted that all relatives werepresent in the hospital during her survival as well as at the time ofpost mortem. In paragraph no. 3 following omissions are brought :- That Meera had come to her parents house and thiswitness questioned about her ornaments and she stated that, whenshe asked accused to redeem the ornaments she was ill treated. Restare all denial. 9.PW4 Padmabai mother in her evidence at Exh.66deposed as under :- Cri.Appeal.648.2005-8- “The deceased Meera was my daughter. The marriage tookplace with Laxman. When I asked about her Ekdani, whenshe come at Diwali. Thereafter, at Sankrant she came to myhouse. On Mahashivratri she was beaten by her husband,when she asked to bring Ekdani. She was pacified and wassent to her husband’s place. My brother-in-law Rambhauwent to meet her. Then, she was not allowed to meet him.She was sent for 6 days at her in-laws place. The father-in-law of Meerabai came after 15 days of Holi to my brother-in-law to demand amount. On the message, we came toJalna Government Hospital. When her husband was askedabout the T.V. he was stating that to bring it from myparents, and then to watch. He had also beaten on thiscount to deceased. Meera stated me in the hospital that shecould not tolerate the ill treatment. Therefore, she herselfset her on fire. The accused are before court today. While under cross, she answered that police did not cometo record his statement and she admitted that she was deposing at theinstance of her husband. So much is the only evidence of parents and uncle. 10.Here, though there was charge for offence under sections304-B, 306, 498-A r/w section 34 of IPC, guilt is recorded by learnedTrial Judge for offence under section 498-A IPC only. 11.As regards charge under Section 498-A IPC is concerned,as to what actually constitutes cruelty has been lucidly and succinctlydealt in the landmark cases of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal Cri.Appeal.648.2005-9- [(1994) 1 SCC 73], Giridhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra(2002) 5 SCC 177; State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao(2008) 15 SCC 582; Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica (2009) 10 SCC604 G. V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka (2010) 3 SCC 152 andGurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 7 SCC 108; K. Subba Rao v.The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452.12.On comparative analysis of evidence of father PW1Laxman, mother PW4 Padmabai and uncle PW2 Rambhau, it is clearlyemerging that, they are merely stating about ill treatment. None ofthem have stated form or quoted instances of ill treatment. Only PW2Rambhau speaks about beating by husband, but when it took place isnot deposed by him. Above all, cross of informant shows that, histestimony is full of material omissions and contradictions. Immediateneighbour PW5 Balaji has not supported prosecution. Therefore,when evidence of prosecution is falling short on essentialrequirements as contemplated under law, said charge cannot be saidto be proved beyond reasonable doubt. 13.As pointed out that, dying declarations of deceased wassaid to be recorded, but surprisingly it is not part of charge-sheet andit is also so observed by learned trial Judge. Very Investigating Cri.Appeal.648.2005-10- Officer, who charge-sheeted accused does not seem to have steppedinto witness box. Another stark feature of this case is that, in spite ofparents and uncle claiming to have received oral dying declaration,none of them have taken urgent steps to lodge FIR in spite ofavailability of police chowky in the hospital. On the contrary, FIR issubsequent to funeral i.e. after two days. Such aspect furthercontributes to the credibility of prosecution version. 14.Perused the judgment under challenge. Learned trialJudge has not assigned sound and plausible reasons for acceptingprosecution version and evidence while recording guilt under section498-A IPC. In the light of above discussion, interference is called for.Hence, the following order : -ORDERI)The criminal appeal stands allowed.II)The conviction awarded to appellants, namely, (i) LaxmanS/o. Bhaurao Shelke, (ii) Bhaurao S/o. Yadavrao Shelkeand (iii) Dwarkabai w/o. Bhaurao Shelke in Sessions CaseNo. 7 of 2001 by 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,Jalna on 31.08.2005 for the offence punishable undersection 498-A of Indian Penal Code, stands quashed andset aside. Cri.Appeal.648.2005-11- III)The appellants stand acquitted of the offence punishableunder section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.IV)The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.V)The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to theappellant after the statutory period. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]Tandale