High Court
Legal Reasoning
-1- Cri.Appeal.104.2004IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 104 OF 2004Laxman S/o. Vishwanath Waghmare, Aged : 27 years, Occu. : Business, R/o. Renakhali, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani.… Appellant (Orig. Accused No.1)VersusThe State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Officer, Police Station, Pathri, Tq. Pathri, Dist. Parbhani… Respondent …Mrs. Rekha Choudhari h/f. Mr.S.S.Choudhari, Advocate for Appellant.Mrs. Chaitali Choudhari – Kutti, APP for Respondent – State.... CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.RESERVED ON : 16 JULY, 2024PRONOUNCED ON : 22 JULY, 2024JUDGMENT : 1.In this appeal, there is challenge to the judgment andorder of conviction of appellant for offence punishable undersections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) in Sessions CaseNo.63 of 2001 passed by learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,Parbhani dated 17.01.2004.FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE SESSIONS CASE2.Appellant and his family members comprising ofparents and brother were arrested by Pathri Police Station on -2- Cri.Appeal.104.2004report lodged by mother (PW1 Ashamati), who informed policethat her daughter Shankuntala was married to accused sevenyears back. Out of wedlock, they had a son. At the time of Diwalifestival, when Shakuntala was brought i.e. just before the incident,she told that husband appellant demanding Rs.15,000/- for staringHair Cutting Saloon and he asked her to bring money. He alsodemanded a tape recorder and gold ring. Informant was unable tosatisfy the demand. After Diwali festival, Shakuntala was sent backto her matrimonial house. Within eight days, news of suicidecommitted by Shakuntala was received. Hence, report was lodgedwith Pathri police station, on the basis of which, crime wasregistered and investigated by PW6 P.I. Sangram Sangale, whocharge-sheeted appellant and his family members for offencepunishable under sections 498A and 306 of IPC. On committal of case, it was tried by learned 2ndAdditional Sessions Judge, Parbhani, vide Sessions Case No.63 of2001. At trial, prosecution adduced evidence of six witnesses.Accused did not lead any evidence. On appreciation of prosecution evidence, learned trialJudge held husband appellant alone guilty for above charge andacquitted remaining accused. Hence, the instant appeal. -3- Cri.Appeal.104.2004EVIDENCE ON RECORD BEFORE TRIAL COURT3. PW1 Dr. Krishnakumar Choudhary, autospy doctor,who after conducting postmortem, opined death to be due to CardioRespiratory failure due to asphyxia due to drowning and issuedP.M. report at Exh.37. PW2 Ashamati informant, mother of deceased, narratedabout marriage, giving cash dowry of Rs.5,000/- and a wrist watchto the accused appellant. She deposed that, at the time of Diwalifestival, when her daughter Shakuntala came, she reporteddemand by husband of Rs.15,000/- for hair cutting saloon, a taperecorder and a gold ring and also reported harassment with a viewto get demand satisfied. Eight days after, her daughter went andnews of her suicidal death was received, and therefore, report waslodged. PW3 Digambar, maternal uncle and brother ofinformant claimed that, after marriage at the time of Diwali, he hadbeen to Saikheda. Deceased told him and his sister that accusedhusband was asking her to bring Rs.15,000/-, tape recorder andgold ring from her mother and ill treating her with a view to satisfydemand. According to him, she told that, husband beat her bykicks and fist blows. Message of death of Shakuntala was received
Legal Reasoning
-4- Cri.Appeal.104.2004and her dead body was found in a well. According to him,Shakuntala committed suicide due to ill treatment. PW4 Bhimrao, brother of deceased, stated that,husband ill treated his sister with a view to satisfy demand ofRs.15,000/- and she narrated it and also stated that, there was illtreatment i.e. when she visited for Diwali festival. She was sentback after Diwali. She died by committing suicide. PW5 Udhav, pancha to inquest panchanama (Exh.43)and spot panchanama (Exh.44). PW6 P.I. Sangram Sangale, Investigating Officer, whoregistered A.D., thereafter carried out investigation and aftergathering sufficient evidence, charge-sheeted accused.SUBMISSIONSOn behalf of Appellant :- 4.Challenging the conviction, learned counsel forappellant pointed out that, apparently there is false implication onvague and general allegations of demand and ill treatment. It ispointed out that, marriage is almost seven years old and baselessallegations of demand of Rs.15,000/- for opening saloon and taperecorder are levelled. That, simplictor allegations are ofharassment without specifying instances or nature of harassment. -5- Cri.Appeal.104.2004She pointed out that, even when there was alleged threat to kill onfailure to meet demand, there was no complaint at any point oftime. 5.It is next submitted that, apart from mother, herbrother and brother of deceased, there is no other independentwitness. No neighbours are examined. That, only interestedwitnesses are examined. According to learned counsel, mother,maternal uncle and brother of deceased are also not consistent andcorroborated each other.6.With regard to charge of 306 of IPC, learned counselpointed out that, there is no evidence on the point of any abetmentto commit suicide. She pointed out that, in-laws are alreadyacquitted by trial court, but only husband is held guilty in absenceof cogent and reliable evidence about abetment or inducement tocommit suicide. Consequently, learned counsel criticized thefindings and judgment recorded by trial court and prays to allowthe appeal. On behalf of State : -7.Per contra, supporting the judgment of conviction,learned APP would point out that, appellant husband put up -6- Cri.Appeal.104.2004demand of money, music system and ornaments and as the samewas not met, deceased Shakuntala was subjected to both physicaland mental cruelty. That, she had reported such demand and illtreatment when she had come for Diwali. That, there was alsothreat to kill, if demand was not met. Learned APP emphasizedthat the very aspect of demand of music system shows that, therewas demand of money for opening saloon, which is required forentertaining customer. She pointed out that, maternal uncle, whohad come during Diwali was also reported and he has deposed tothat extent. That, even real brother, who had been to bring her forDiwali has deposed about demand and ill treatment. According tolearned APP, in cases of such nature, best available evidence is thatof close relatives and as such there cannot be independenttestimonies. Learned APP submitted that, when their testimonieswere found to be trustworthy and having remained unshaken,learned trial Judge rightly accepted the same. Therefore, accordingto her, there is no need to disturb the findings and conclusionreached at by learned trial Judge.ANALYSIS8.Here, there is evidence of informant mother (PW1), herbrother (PW3) and brother of deceased (PW4). On analyzing the evidence on record, it is emerging -7- Cri.Appeal.104.2004from mother’s evidence that, marriage is seven years old prior todeath of Shakuntala. In her testimony she stated that, just beforethe incident, her daughter had come for Diwali and had reportedthat accused husband Laxman was demanding Rs.15,000/- forstarting hair cutting saloon, demanding tape recorder and a goldring. According to her, her daughter told that she was subjected toharassment for satisfying the demand and even issued life threats,upon failure to bring amount and valuables. PW3 Digambar, brother of PW2 informant, who ismaternal uncle of deceased, in his evidence at Exh.40, stated that,when he had come to Saikheda for Diwali festival, deceased toldhim that accused husband asking her to bring Rs.15,000/-, taperecorder and gold ring from her mother and was ill treating her tosatisfy his demand. According to him, husband beat deceased bykicks and fist blows. PW4 Bhimrao, brother of deceased stated that, husbandill treated his sister for satisfying demand of Rs.15,000/- and shereported when came for Diwali festival.9.On carefully sifting the above evidence, it is noticedthat, mother merely speaks about her daughter informing her thatshe was harassed by husband. What was the harassment and in -8- Cri.Appeal.104.2004what form and whether it was physical or mental, has not beenstated by her. In cross examination she stated that, her sonBhimrao went to bring deceased for Diwali and in second breathshe stated that, she herself brought deceased prior to Diwalifestival. Then she answered that, her daughter told about illtreatment after Diwali. In further cross, she admitted that,accused nos.1 and 3 resided separately and they wereindependently working as Barber by accepting remuneration. 10.Whereas, PW3 maternal uncle has not specified aboutdemand of Rs.15,000/- for starting hair cutting saloon as isdeposed by his sister. Even he merely speaks about ill treatmentwithout specifying its form or quoting any instances. 11.Brother also, has failed to state about Rs.15,000/- forsaloon and he even did not depose about demand of gold ring andtape recorder as is deposed by his mother and uncle. Therefore, firstly witnesses, who are close relatives, arenot consistent. Secondly they are raising general allegations bymerely speaking about harassment and ill treatment withoutgiving specification or clarifications, manner of harassment andnature of ill treatment. Thus, general, vague and omnibusallegations are raised which are not sufficient to attract offence of498A of IPC. -9- Cri.Appeal.104.200412.Husband alone is held guilty for commission of offenceunder section 306 of IPC as well. Informant mother alleges that,her daughter Shakuntala committed suicide due to ill treatment.This court has already analyzed available evidence and hasreached to a finding that there is weak and ambiguous evidence onthe point of 498A of IPC. Witnesses are not giving instances andform of ill treatment. No doubt, dead body of Shakuntala wastraced in the well, but there is no distinct evidence to show that,before alleged suicide, which is a case of prosecution, there wascruelty which was of such nature that she was left with noalternative, but to end up her life by committing suicide or thatthere was any abetment or inducement by husband to commitsuicide. On the contrary, circumstances and scene of occurrenceshow that, footwear and nylon rope, who was lying at the well,wherein there was also evidence of freshly drawn water.Admittedly, A.D. is at the instance of accused no.2 andInvestigating Officer in his cross examination has admitted to thatextent. Prosecution has not demonstrated in trial court that, deathwas only and only suicidal and not otherwise. Above discussedcircumstances and the scene of occurrence creates otherpossibility also. Column no.17 of P.M. report shows that, contusedlaceration over left eyebrow. Autopsy doctor has not issuedopinion as to whether it was ante-mortem injury or post-mortem -10- Cri.Appeal.104.2004injury. Defence has also unfortunately not taken pains to elicitexplanation.13.With such material on record, no concrete inference oropinion can be drawn that Shakuntala died due to jumping in thewell only. Therefore, it is the case of benefit of doubt.14.Learned APP tried to point out that, nylon rope wasfound to be entangled to the neck when body was extracted out ofthe well. In support of such contention, she invited attention of thecourt to the scene of occurrence panchanama and inquestpanchanama. But, pancha PW5 Udhav, who has stepped intowitness box does not speak about such condition of dead body.Therefore, apparently substantive evidence of pancha PW5 Udhavis silent about entanglement of any nylon rope. Rather, piece ofnylon rope is also shown to be lying near the well. Therefore, suchcircumstances further creates doubt about mode and manner ofdeath. In the light of above discussion, neither charge ofsection 498A nor section 306 of IPC is firmly and cogently proved.15.Perused the judgment, learned trial Judge hasapparently not appreciated the inconsistencies in the evidence ofPW2 mother, PW3 maternal uncle and PW4 brother of deceased. -11- Cri.Appeal.104.2004Allegations which are vague and omnibus, are improperlyappreciated to record guilt. Hence, the findings and the conclusion reached at bythe learned trial Judge, being erroneous, interference is called for.Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :- ORDERI)Criminal Appeal stands allowed.II)The conviction awarded to Laxman S/o. VishwanathWaghmare in Sessions Case No.63 of 2001 by the learned2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani on 17.01.2004for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside.III)The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishableunder Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.IV)The bail bonds of the appellant stands cancelled.V)The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to theappellant after the statutory period.VI)It is clarified that there is no change as regards the orderin respect of disposal of muddemal. (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)Tandale