High Court

Legal Reasoning

revn-396.05.odt1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.396 OF 2005Bhagirathibai W/o Babruhan Shahane,Age-42 years, Occu:Household,R/o-MSEB Colony, Idga Road,Beed, Taluka and District-Beed. ...APPLICANT (Original Complainant) VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through City Police Station, Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar,2) Sachin Ashok Maid, Age-26 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-Ramnagar, Ward No.1, Shrirampur, District-Ahmednagar,3) Shobhabai @ Hirabai Ashok Maid, Age-46 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-As Above,4) Kanchan Ganesh Udawant, Age-21 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-As Above,5) Vaishali Somnath Kulathe, Age-28 years, Occu:Nil, R/o-As Above. ...RESPONDENTS ... Ms. Gausiya N. Sayyed Advocate h/f. Mr. M.A. Tandale Advocate for Applicant. Ms. P.R. Bharaswadkar, A.P.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr. V.R. Dhorde Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 5. ... CORAM: S.G. MEHARE, J. DATE : 30th JULY, 2024 revn-396.05.odt2ORAL JUDGMENT :1.Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP forthe State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2.Respondents-accused, who were the mother and sisters ofaccused No.1/husband of the deceased, faced the trial for theoffence under Section 304-B, 498-A read with Section 34 of theIndian Penal Code. The deceased married respondent No.1 on18th May 2001 and died of burn injuries on 10th June 2004. Areport was lodged against the respondents/accusedthat thedeceased was ill-treated for the remaining balance of the dowryamount. Due to continuous harassment, she set herself on fire.3. The full-fledged trial was conducted before the AdditionalSessions Judge, Shrirampur. The Additional Sessions Judgedisbelieved the prosecution story on the ground that there was adelay in lodging the First Information Report (for short,“the FIR”).There is material improvement in the prosecution story regardingthe demand for dowry. There was overwriting in the FIR. Learnedtrial Court also considered the financial background and theconduct of the accused, who had nominated the deceased in LICpolicies and fixed deposits. The learned trial court, consideringthe law laid down by the Court of Laws on Section 304-B of theIndian Penal Code and presumptions under the law came to the revn-396.05.odt3conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish the chargesagainst the accused beyond reasonable doubt and finallyacquitted the accused.4.This Revision was preferred in 2005. In due course, it waslisted. The applicant and her lawyer were absent. Hence, thepresence of the counsel for the applicant was secured by notice.Notice was also sent to the applicant. Police served it. Thecounsel for the applicant tried to submit that since theapplicant/complainant is not in contact, it is difficult for her toadvance the arguments. However, the facts have beenestablished on record that the first informant is alive. She did notcancel the Vakalatnama of the counsel of the applicant. Unlessthe Vakalatnama is cancelled or the party appoints the lawyerdies, the lawyer cannot be discharged till the final adjudicationunder criminal law.5.Finally, learned counsel Ms. Gausiya Sayyed, holding forlearned counsel Mr. Tandale, advanced the arguments. She hasvehemently argued that the improvements were not material. Nosatisfactory material was brought in the cross-examination of thewitnesses to rebut the presumption of death within seven yearsof marriage. The deceased had no reason to commit suicide.Learned Additional Sessions Judge has exaggerated the findingon the delay in lodging the FIR. The explanation for the delay has revn-396.05.odt4also been incorrectly appreciated. She further argued that merelynominating the deceased in fixed deposits and LIC policies is notsufficient to believe that she was not ill-treated for the demandof dowry. The evidence before the Court was specific that soonbefore the death, the deceased was ill-treated for the demand ofdowry. The complainant had no reason to file the incorrect report.She also argued that the learned Additional Sessions Judge heldthat respondent Nos.3 and 4 reside at different places. Merelyresiding in distant places is insufficient to believe that they werenot involved in the crime. She argued that the learned AdditionalSessions Judge incorrectly appreciated the evidence and alsorelied on the case-laws, which were not relevant. The prosecutionhas produced sufficient evidence to prove the case beyond areasonable doubt. However, the respondents/accused have beenacquitted due to misconception of law. Hence, the Revision maybe allowed.6.Per contra, the learned counsel for therespondents/accused submits that the learned AdditionalSessions Judge has correctly appreciated the evidence. He hasspecifically observed that there was overwriting in the FIR, whichcreated serious doubt about the veracity of the allegations. Sincerespondent Nos. 3 and 4 were residing at their places with theirhusbands, and they had no reason to ill-treat the deceased for ademand for a dowry. A story of the balance dowry amount has revn-396.05.odt5been improved. It was not mentioned in the FIR. There werematerial improvements in the story of the demand for a balanceddowry amount. There was no evidence that soon before theincident, the deceased was ill-treated for the demand of dowry.There was no nexus between the demand for dowry and thedeath. The evidence has been correctly appreciated. Hence, theimpugned Judgment and order does not warrant interference.7.Considering the scope of Section 397of Cr.P.C. read withSection 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court hasalso limitations. In revisional jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence unless the trial Court has avoidedreading the evidence which was relevant and material, or theevidence has not been correctly appreciated.8.Perused the impugned Judgment and order. Prima facie itappears that the story of demand of the balance amount ofdowry was improved. The prosecution evidence was notconsistent regarding the demand of the a balance amount ofdowry. There was no whisper in the FIR that some portion ofdowry remained to be paid. The witnesses are deposing contraryto what allegations were levelled against the accused. The trialCourt has observed that the suicide note was not referred. Thelearned trial Court was right in believing that there was no nexusbetween the demand of dowry and the death. Therefore, Section revn-396.05.odt6304-B of the Indian Penal Code does not attract. Overwriting inthe FIR was another circumstance before the trial court thatraised doubt about the veracity of the witnesses. The cause forthe demand for dowry was also at variance. Though the accusedNos. 3 and 4, married sisters of husband, the ground that theywere residing separately, and it was not grounds to disbelievethe allegations of treating the married woman with cruelty forthe demand of dowry, and the Court has correctly appreciatedthe facts. The learned trial Court has correctly appreciated theevidence and recorded the findings that the prosecution failed toestablish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. There wasnothing on record to point out that the learned trial Courtincorrectly appreciated the evidence or did not consider therelevant and material evidence. The entire evidence has beenappreciated in the context of the allegations levelled against theaccused. 9.On examining the impugned Judgment and order, the Courtis not convinced that there are reasons to interfere with theimpugned Judgment and orders of the acquittal. The Revision isdevoid of merit. Hence, the Revision stands dismissed. 10. No order as to costs.11.Rule stands discharged. revn-396.05.odt712.Record and Proceedings be returned to the learned trialCourt. [ S.G. MEHARE, J. ]asb/JULY24