High Court
Legal Reasoning
11027IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD1027 CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2501 OF 2025 IN APPEAL/501/20251. BRAHMANAND GURUNATH SWAMI (MATHPATI)2. GURUNATH VISHWANATH SWAMI (MATHPATI)3. SHANTABAI GURUNATH SWAMI (MATHPATI) VERSUSTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA...Advocate for Applicants: Mr. Mahesh S. Deshmukh i/b.Mr. Uddhav Laxmanrao MomaleAPP for Respondent/State: Mrs. A. S. Mantri…WITHCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2025...CORAM :ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.DATE :01.08.2025P.C. : 1.Heard.2.The present application is filed by the applicantsfor suspension of substantive sentence imposed on them inSessions Case No.64/2008, dated 05.07.2025, by AdditionalSessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur. The applicants havebeen convicted thus:“1. The accused No. 1 Bramhanand Gurunath Swami(Mathpati), No. 3) Gurunath Vishwanath Swami(Mathpati) and No. 4) Sau. Shantabai GurunathSwami(Mathpati) are held guilty and convicted for offencepunishable under section Offence p.u.s. 304-B, 498-A r. w.sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well as offence 21027punishable under section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Actvide Sec. 235 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure for the.2. The accused No.1 Bramhanand Gurunath Swami(Mathpati) is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor 10 (Ten) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand), in default of payment of fine, he shallsuffer rigorous imprisonment for 02 (Two) months foroffences p.u.s. 304-B r. w. sec. 34 of the Indian PenalCode.3. The accused No.3 Gurunath Vishwanath Swami(Mathpati) is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor 07 (Seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs.Five Thousand), in default of payment of fine, he shallsuffer rigorous imprisonment for 02 (Two) months foroffences p.u.s. 304-B r. w. sec. 34 of the Indian PenalCode.4. The accused No.4 Sau. Shantabai Gurunath Swami(Mathpati) is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor the period of 07 (Seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand), in default of payment of fine,she shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 02 (Two)months for offences p.u.s. 304-B r. w. sec. 34 of the IndianPenal Code.5. The accused No.1 Bramhanand Gurunath Swami(Mathpati) is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor 01 (One) years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine, he shallsuffer rigorous imprisonment for 01 (One) month foroffences p.u.s. 498-A r. w. sec. 34 of the Indian PenalCode.6. The accused No.3 Gurunath Vishwanath Swami(Mathpati) is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor 01 (One) year and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs. TwoThousand), in default of payment of fine, he shall sufferrigorous imprisonment for 01 (One) years for offencesp.u.s. 498-A r. w. sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.7. The accused No.4 Sau. Shantabai Gurunath Swami(Mathpati) is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonmentfor the period of 01 (One) year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand), in default of payment of fine,she shall suffer rigorous imprisonment for 01 (One) monthfor offences p.u.s. 498-A r. w. sec. 34 of the Indian PenalCode.
Legal Reasoning
310278. The accused No. 1 Bramhanand Gurunath Swami(Mathpati), No. 3) Gurunath Vishwanath Swami(Mathpati) and No. 4) Sau. Shantabai GurunathSwami(Mathpati), each of them, is sentenced to sufferrigorous imprisonment for the period of 06 (Six) monthand to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand) each,in default of payment of fine, they shall suffer rigorousimprisonment for 01 (one) month for offences punishableunder section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.9. All the substantive sentence shall run concurrently.”3.The learned counsel for the applicants submitsthat as regards applicant no.1 husband of the deceased he isconvicted maximum for 10 years and other 2 applicants areconvicted for 7 years. All sentences are to run concurrently.4.The learned counsel for the applicants submitsthat applicant no.1 married the deceased in the year 2003and it is stated that the deceased with her ten months oldchild committed suicide on 30.06.2008. The case againstthe applicants is registered under Sections 304(B) , 498-Ar/w Section 34 of the IPC. The applicants are convicted forSection 304(B) of the IPC and Section 498-A r/w Section 34of the IPC. It is stated that at the time of the marriage theapplicants demanded 2 tolas of gold and an amount ofRs.1,00,000/- which was to be paid by selling of their land.It is stated that just prior to the incident i.e. on 29.04.2008the deceased was driven out of the house by all theapplicants on account of non payment of dowry and,thereafter, she went to her maternal home. It is stated that 41027on 04.05.2008, informant PW-1 along with PW-7 returnedher back to her matrimonial home and assurance was givenby PW-1 to the applicants that he would pay the balancedowry to the applicants. It is again stated that on15.06.2008 that when the PW-1 had met deceased she hadmentioned to him that the in-laws are continuouslyharassing her on account of non-payment of dowry.Thereafter on 30.06.2008 on account of harassment anddowry demand the deceased committed suicide.5.The learned counsel for the applicants has takenme through the evidence of PW-1, wherein he hasparticularly pointed out that PW-1 in his cross-examinationhas deposed that he married on 29.04.2008 and in hismarriage the family of the deceased were present and infact the mangalashtaka were recited by accused no.1.Similar is the statement of PW-5 that they were present inthe marriage. As such, the learned counsel submits that thealleged incident as stated to be on 29.04.2008 has not takenplace. He also points out that the incident of returning thedeceased on 04.05.2008 is also concocted. PW-10, theInvestigating Officer has stated that PW-1 has not stated tohim that the informant had gone to the house of theNilamma (deceased) for dropping her and he agreed to givegold as agreed in the marriage. It is also stated by PW-10that the at the time of lodging report the informant has notstated that on 15.06.2008 when he went to Loni for work 51027he had been to the house of Nilamma and at that timeNilamma had stated to the informant that all the accusedare harassing her for non payment of dowry. As such, hepoints out that the incidents / events dated 29.04.2008,04.05.2008 and 15.06.2008 have never taken place. Thelearned counsel submits that the evidence on this aspect isclear, that this is an improvisation made just to bring theoffence under Section 304(B). He further points outEvidence of PW-5, wherein she has stated that two goldrings were brought by the applicants for the namingceremony of the daughter of PW-1 and that they were givenas presents by the present applicants to her. He also pointsout in her deposition of PW-5 that when the land was soldin the year 2006 there was no demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. Hesubmits that going by his particular evidence if there wasany demand of dowry there could have been no occasion forthe applicants to gift gold or participate in the ceremony ofthe informant. He submits that the case is made outspecially as regards the demand of dowry is not borne outfrom the record. The entire evidence is only oral and madeat the stage of deposition and in the cross-examination thecase of demand of dowry is entirely destroyed.6.Considering these aspects of the matter, thelearned counsel for the applicants submits that the appealbe admitted, sentence be suspended and the applicants bereleased on bail. 610277.The learned APP submits that considering theevidence of PW-1, PW-5, PW-7 the demand of dowry is speltout and that there is harassment at the instance of theapplicant and that the same has been dealt with by thelearned trial court in paragraphs no.45 and 49 as under:“45) It is true that it has come in evidence thatmarriage of informant was solemnized on 29-4-2008,the deceased Nilamma and accused persons attendedmarriage, cannot be a ground to discard the evidenceof informant Shivaling (PW-1) on point of subjectedcruelty to deceased Nilamma on 29-4-2008.Moreover, the evidence on record has shows that thein-laws of deceased Nilamma harassed her for unpaiddemand of dowry, i.e. two tolas gold and she wassubjected to illtreatment on that count, thereafter shewas assaulted on 29-4-2008, the informant visited herhouse on 15-6-2008, she made complaint of ill-treatment meted out to her by the in-laws, thereafterincident occurred on 30-6-2008. All this chain ofcircumstances shows that their existed live andproximity link between incident of dowry demandand death caused therefor.49) The evidence adduced by the prosecution revealsthat two tolas gold of dowry was not paid inmarriage, the deceased was subjected ill-treating byin-laws for unpaid dowry after the marriage, theevidence on record shows that deceased was harassedpersistently by in-laws against the dowry demand, shenarrated the informant about the same, the deceasedwas assaulted and driven out of house on 29-4-2008,the informant dropped deceased to her matrimonialhouse and tried to convince the accused, still thedeceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment bythe accused persons, which is seen from the evidenceof informant (PW-1) that when he has visited houseof in-laws of deceased Nilamma on 15-6-2008 andmeet her. Thereafter, the deceased Nilamma and herminor daughter Payal found in burnt condition.” 710278.Considered the rival submissions. Theingredients required for offence of 304-B IPC is noted by theHon’ble Apex Court in the case of of Satbir Singh andanother Vs. State of Haryana, (2021) 6 SCC 1. Forconviction under Section 304-B of the IPC following are theessential ingredients:“10.To sustain the conviction under Section 304-BIPC, the following essential ingredients are to beestablished:(i)the death of a woman should becaused by burns or bodily injury orotherwise than under a “normalcircumstance”;(ii)such a death should haveoccurred within seven years of hermarriage;(iii)she must have been subjected tocruelty or harassment by her husband orany relative of her husband;(iv)such cruelty or harassmentshould be for or in connection withdemand of dowry; and(v)such cruelty or harassment isshown to have been meted out to thewoman soon before her death.”9.Considering the essential requirements to bringhome the guilt under Section 304-B of the IPC andconsidering the evidence as on record, prima -facie, it seenthat the evidence as regards the driving out the victim on29.04.2008 from the matrimonial home for not meeting thedemand of dowry, so also, returning her back on04.05.2008 and evidence as regards the assurance wasgiven by PW-1 that the demand of dowry would be met innear future, are not clearly brought out. From the cross- 81027examination of the prosecution witnesses the probability ofthese events becomes doubtful. There is doubt as regardsthe events of 29.04.2008, 04.05.2008 and 15.06.2008. Theevidence of PW-10, the Investigating Officer hascontradicted the statement of PW-1, PW-5, PW-7, so also,evidence of PW-5 states about land was sold in the year2006 there was no demand of Rs.1,00,000/-, whichaccording to the prosecution was one of the demand at thetime when the marriage was fixed.10.Considering all these aspects, the applicants hasarguable case and the trial court’s Judgment is clearlyassailable. In view of this, there is doubt as regards theevidence of demand of dowry, sustained harassment fordowry and soon before incident there was demand ofdowry. 11.Considering the same, the Criminal AppealNo.501 of 2025 is admitted. 12.The learned APP accepts notice for the StateAuthorities.13.Leave to amend / add grounds in the appealmemo 14.Considering the above, I pass the followingorder : 91027ORDERi]Criminal Application No.2501 of 2025 isallowed. ii]The substantive sentence imposed on theapplicants in Sessions Case No.64/2008, dated 05.07.2025,by Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir, District Latur , standssuspended till the final hearing and disposal of CriminalAppeal. iii]The applicants be released on bail on furnishingP.R. bond of Rs.20,000/- each with one or two sureties inthe like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court. iv]Bail before the trial Court. v]The applicants shall attend the trial court once ina year till final hearing and disposal of the appeal,commencing from the date the applicants tender bail papersand thereafter, the trial Judge to fix dates for his subsequentappearances.vi]It is also clarified that the observations made inthis order are limited only for the purpose of deciding thepresent Application. [ARUN R. PEDNEKER] JUDGE marathe