High Court
Legal Reasoning
CriAppeal-605-2002-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 605 OF 2002Mohan s/o Kundalik Nannaware,Age 24 Years, Occ. Nil,R/o Jod-Georai, Taluka Paithan,District Aurangabad.… Petitioner [Original Accused]versusThe State of MaharashtraThrough The Police Station,Bidkin, Taluka Paithan, District Aurangabad.… Respondent…..Mr. Y. B. Bolkar, Advocate for the Appellant, [appointed].Mr. S. M. Ganachari, APP for the Respondent-State...... CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. Reserved on: 12.02.2024Pronounced on: 15.02.2024JUDGMENT : 1.Exception is hereby taken to the judgment and order ofconviction passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,Aurangabad, dated 14.08.2002, recording guilt of appellant for theoffence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 of the Indian PenalCode [IPC] while deciding Sessions Case No. 234 of 2000. CriAppeal-605-2002-2- 2.In brief, case of prosecution is that deceased Savita was marriedto accused 10 months prior to the incident. After marriage, initiallyeverything was smooth. However, accused and deceased shifted toChitegaon, and one or two months thereafter, there was beating byaccused to deceased. That, subsequently accused started suspectingher character and beat her mercilessly. Therefore, because of ill-treatment and consistent suspicion on her character, deceasedcommitted suicide by setting herself on fire. Therefore, father lodgedFIR, on the strength of which crime was registered and it wasinvestigated by PW5 and after gathering sufficient evidence, accusedcame to be chargesheeted and further tried by learned AdditionalSessions Judge for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.3.On appreciating the oral and documentary evidence adduced byprosecution, learned Additional Ad-hoc Sessions Judge accepted thecase of prosecution as proved and convicted the appellant-accused forabove offences and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment forfive years for offence under Section 306 IPC and rigorousimprisonment for two years for offence under Section 498-A IPC. Thisjudgment is now assailed before this court by filing instant appeal.
Legal Reasoning
CriAppeal-605-2002-3- SUBMISSIONS :4.Learned counsel for the appellant would point out thatapparently there is false implication. According to him, there is noevidence in support of alleged harassment, ill-treatment or suspicionof character, neither any instances of harassment are stated by theinformant father or other prosecution witnesses. According to him,deceased had committed suicide for the best reasons known to her.That, occurrence is of 05.05.2000. However, deceased died on08.05.2000. While undergoing treatment, her dying declaration wasrecorded and it is pointed out that in the same, she had reportedoccurrence as accidental one. That, later on false case is foistedalleging harassment. He pointed out that there is no instigation orabetment to hold accused responsible for alleged death. Learnedcounsel took this court through the evidence of prosecution witnessesand their cross and submitted that case has not been proved beyondreasonable doubt as is expected from the prosecution. According tohim, learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence as requiredand findings reached at are not supported by sound reasons. That,resultantly, judgment rendered is not legally sustainable and hence,he prays to allow the appeal. CriAppeal-605-2002-4- 5.In answer to above, learned APP pointed out that marriage is of1999 whereas occurrence is of 05.05.2000. Deceased had suffered68% burns. Investigation revealed that accused had been with victimon that day for cutting wood and he had mercilessly beaten her.Moreover, after reaching home, he had latched the door from outsideand went away. Because of continuous harassment, beating andsuspicion on character, deceased poured kerosene and immolatedherself. That, out of fear and at the instance of husband, she gavefalse dying declaration about accidental burns. It is pointed out thatfather has set law into motion. There was oral dying declaration tohim, wherein deceased has disclosed treatment mated out to her. Hisevidence has remained unshaken. Therefore, there being cogent andreliable evidence, learned trial court has correctly appreciated thesame and has committed no error whatsoever in recording guilt andhence, he prays to dismiss the appeal.6.On going through the record, it transpires that in support of itscase, prosecution has examined five witnesses i.e. PW1 Kisan (father),PW2 Mainabai (mother), PW3 PHC Kendre who registered AD, PW4ASI Pawar, who was posted at medical police chowki, Aurangabadand PW5 PSI Devre, who registered complaint lodged by father andcarried out investigation. CriAppeal-605-2002-5- ANALYSIS7.On going through the evidence of PW1 and PW2, who areparents of deceased Savita, it is emerging that marriage is of 1999.Incident of burns suffered by deceased Savita is admittedly of05.05.2000. According to father, who stepped into the witness boxand is the informant, after marriage, initially everything was smoothwhile deceased and accused stayed at Jod-Georai. But after theirshifting to Chitegaon, according to him, after one or two months,PW2 went to meet her and on returning, PW2 told that Savita was nothappy and that her life was not peaceful. According to him, after onemonth when his son Sidharth went to his sister i.e. deceased, accuseddid not send her and thereafter, once accused came to drop deceasedbut he went away from the gate itself. During her stay, deceased toldthat accused used to beat her questioning her for sitting outside thehouse and according to her, accused was trying to suspect hercharacter. Later on, after staying for two days, she went to the houseof accused. A month thereafter, brother in law of accused told PW2that there is no good going for Savita and that she should be broughtback. One or two months thereafter, he received message aboutSavita being admitted in hospital on account of burns and thereforehe, his son and wife went to meet her. According to him, she told that CriAppeal-605-2002-6- it was holiday and so she and accused went out to gather wood forfuel and in the jungle, accused mercilessly beat her saying as to whyshe has habit of standing outside of the house and thereafter, wheythey both returned home, he closed the door from the outside,latched it and went away. He further deposed that his daughter toldthat only due to said harassment which she was unable to bear, sheset herself on fire.In cross, he has admitted that there was no previous complaintat any point of time. He denied that deceased never told him thatgetting fed up of harassment, she set herself on fire. He also deniedthe suggestion that while igniting chimney, it fell on her and shesuffered burns.8.PW2 mother deposed that for about four to five months ofmarriage, her daughter was treated well, but thereafter, wheneverSavita came, she reported beating by suspecting her character. Sheclaims that when she went to the house of accused, deceased told herthat accused continued beating her and that after one month, they gotnews about her admission in hospital wherein, when they went tomeet her, she told that due to harassment of accused, she set herselfon fire. CriAppeal-605-2002-7- In cross, there is complete denial of almost all suggestions.9.Rest of the witnesses are police witnesses.10.on carefully analyzing the above evidence, except parents, thereis no other independent evidence on the point of accused suspectingcharacter of deceased and beating her. Even there is no complaintregarding the alleged beating which took place in forest by accused tothe deceased i.e. on the day on which she suffered burns. Father andmother are not consistent as regards to since when harassment began.Only allegations are of beating, but specific instances are not quoted.Therefore, evidence as regards to Section 498-A IPC are patentlymissing from the evidence of parents. No neighbour or other relatives,who were said to be involved, are examined by prosecution.11.Learned counsel for the appellant had invited attention of thecourt to the evidence of the Investigating Officer PW5 in support ofhis contention that deceased herself gave dying declaration about shesuffering burns on account of accidental fall of chimney. CriAppeal-605-2002-8- On going through the testimony of PW5 at Exhibit 18, we findhim candidly admitting in cross in para 3 that dying declaration wasgiven by deceased which was recorded by the Special ExecutiveMagistrate and he had perused the said dying declaration. He hasfurther candidly answered that from the evidence point of view, dyingdeclaration was not favourable to the prosecution and therefore hehas not produced it with the chargesheet.12.When such is the evidence of very Investigating Officer, caseput forth by defence about accidental burns gets fortified. Thoughparents claimed to have learnt from daughter in hospital about sheimmolated herself only out of harassment of accused, there is noimmediate complaint by them. Rather, complaint seems to be lodgedon 09.05.2000 i.e. one day after demise of deceased. Resultantly, withsuch quality of evidence, in the considered opinion of this Court,learned trial court ought not to have recorded guilt. Consequently,this court is of the opinion that there is perversity and illegality inappreciation and recording the guilt. Findings and reasons are not inconsonance with the evidence on record and hence interference iscalled for. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: CriAppeal-605-2002-9- ORDERI.The criminal appeal stands allowed.II.Conviction awarded to the appellant Mohan s/o KundalikNannaware, by learned II Additional Adhoc SessionsJudge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 234 of 2000under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC on 14.08.2002,stands quashed and set aside.III.The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishableunder Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.IV.Bail bonds of appellant stand cancelled.V.Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to theappellant after the statutory period.VI. Mr. Y. B. Bolkar, Advocate was appointed to represent theappellant. His legal fees is quantified at Rs.10,000/- to bepaid by the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee,Aurangabad. [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]vre