High Court

Legal Reasoning

{1} Cri. Appeal No. 879-2006IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 879 OF 20061.The State of MaharashtraThrough Police Station Yusuf Wadgaon,Through Bajarang Gynadeo JadhavR/o. : Sarasa, Tq. & Dist. Latur … Appellant (Ori. Complainant)VERSUS1.Khandu @ Shriram Sanjay Palkar,Age : 25 years, Occ. : Agri.,R/o. : Somnath Borgaon, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed2.Sanjay s/o. Mohanrao Palkar,Age : 60 years, Occ. : Nil,R/o. : as above3.Parimalabai w/o. Sanjay Palkar,Age : 55 years, Occ. Nil,R/o. : as above … Respondents (Ori. Accused)…Mr. Rajdeep D. Raut – APP for Appellant, State Ms. Ashwini A. Lomte – Advocate for Respondent No.1….CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.DATE : 28.02.2025JUDGMENT :1.The appellant/State has challenged the acquittal of presentrespondents/accused from the offence under Section 498–A, 306,504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code recorded by the learnedI Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge at Ambajogai, Dist. BeedPooja Kale {2} Cri. Appeal No. 879-2006(hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Court”) in Sessionscase No.43 of 2004, under the judgment and order dated29.09.2006. Appeal is already abated against respondent Nos.2and 3 being dead.2.According to the case of prosecution Rajeshree who was thedaughter of complainant – Bajarang Dnyandeo Jadhav got marriedwith present respondent No.1 – Khandu i.e. accused No.1 on26.05.2001. She was initially treated properly by all therespondents/accused but then they started demandingRs.50,000/- from her for various purposes such as digging of borewell, starting grocery shop and purchase of motor cycle. On nonfulfillment of their demand they used to beat and abuse Rajeshree.Rajeshree told about her such ill–treatment to her parentswhenever she used to come to their house. Complainant –Bajarang i.e. father of Rajeshree had even paid amount ofRs.15,000/- to the accused towards the partial fulfillment of thealleged demand. However, accused No.1 – Khandu after returningfrom Pune told the complainant that he had purchased old BajajM–80 bike with the amount of Rs.15,000/- and then demandedthe remaining amount of Rs.35,000/-. Accused No.1 – Khanduhad even said that he would keep Rajeshree with him only whenPooja Kale {3} Cri. Appeal No. 879-2006the aforesaid amount is paid. On the very next day the accusedsent back Rajeshree to the house of complainant. However, thecomplainant alongwith his brother went to the house of accusedand requested to keep Rajeshree. The accused again demanded theamount from them and on showing inability they abused thecomplainant. Later on due to intervention of family memberssomehow Rajeshree was taken to the house of accused but on21.01.2004 complainant – Bajarang i.e. father of Rajeshreereceived information about suicidal death of Rajeshree by hangingherself. Accordingly, the report was lodged against the accusedand the present crime was registered. However, the learned TrialCourt after conducting the trial acquitted the accused from theaforesaid charge leveled against them.3.Learned A.P.P. submits that though the witnesses fromparental side of deceased Rajeshree deposed as per theprosecution story and also corroborated with each other but thelearned Trial Court erroneously disbelieved their evidence. He alsopointed out that Rajeshree committed suicide only within twoyears of her marriage and despite evidence laid by the prosecutionwitnesses establishing the fact that accused were demandingamount of Rs.50,000/- and on non fulfillment of the same causingPooja Kale {4} Cri. Appeal No. 879-2006ill–treatment to deceased Rajeshree, the learned Trial Court byignoring the same wrongly acquitted them. As such, he prayed forreversal of the judgment delivered by the learned Trial Court andconviction of the accused.4.On the contrary, learned Counsel for therespondents/accused supported the judgment of the learned TrialCourt. According to her Rajeshree committed suicide as she wasnot happy with the poor financial condition of the accusedspecially when financial condition of her father was so strong.Even the financial condition of her married sisters was also soundthan her. She pointed out that the prosecution witnesses whosupported the case are from same family and therefore, they werebound to depose against the accused. According to her though thehouse of accused was situated in slum area which was highlypopulated, no single independent witness is saying that deceasedRajeshree was being ill treated by the accused. She pointed out theadmission given by the Investigating Officer whereby it has comeon record that though the Investigating Officer recorded thestatements of neighbouring persons of the accused about thealleged ill–treatment of Rajeshree but they did not disclose anysuch ill–treatment. According to her though it was the case ofPooja Kale {5} Cri. Appeal No. 879-2006prosecution that Police Patil of Somnath Borgaon had givenunderstanding to the accused for not causing harassment to thedeceased Rajeshree but the statement of said Police Patil was noteven recorded. Thus, she lastly submitted that Rajeshree was nothappy with financial condition of the accused and therefore, mighthave committed suicide without being ill–treated. Thus she prayedfor dismissal of the appeal.5.Heard rival submissions and also perused the record andproceeding alongwith the impugned judgment.6.On going through the record it appears that the prosecutionhas cross–examined in all seven witnesses, out of them P.W. 1 –Bajarang Dnyandeo Jadhav is the father of deceased Rajeshreewho had lodged the complaint (Exhibit–23). P.W. 2 – BhagwanBajirao Pawar is another son–in–law of the complainant. P.W. 3 –Nandak Sopan Sonwane, P.S.I. who had registered the A.D. on thereport of accused No.1 – Khandu and also recorded the complaint(Exhibit–23). P.W. 4 – Sunita Anant Jadhav is the aunt of deceasedRajeshree whereas P.W. 5 – Annasaheb Gyandeo Jadhav is theuncle of deceased Rajeshree. P.W. 6 – Minabai w/o. BhagwanraoPawar is the cousin sister of deceased Rajeshree and lastly, P.W. 7– Ashok Radhakishan Amble, A.P.I. is the Investigating Officer. ThePooja Kale {6} Cri. Appeal No. 879-2006suicidal death of Rajeshree is not disputed. Though according tothe prosecution there were suspicious circumstances on the spotof incident such as scratch mark on the neck of deceased andblood on the bed cover, however on perusal of post mortem reportno injuries except the ligature mark were found on the person ofdeceased Rajeshree. Further, though the bed cover having bloodstains was seized from the spot but it was not tested throughChemical Analyzer. In absence of the same, it cannot be inferredthat prior to committing the suicide deceased Rajeshree wasbeaten by the accused which led her to commit suicide. 7.It is significant to note that all the witnesses for theprosecution are close relatives of the deceased and no independentwitness is examined by the prosecution about alleged ill–treatmentto the deceased at the hands of accused. Even the evidence offamily members of the deceased suffers from the addition andcontradiction. P.W. 3 – Nandak Sopan Sonwane, P.S.I. has alsobrought so many omissions on record in the statement ofcomplainant – Bajarang. On going through the cross–examinationof this witness it has come on record that Bajarang had not statedvital facts about his visits to the house of accused and in respect ofalleged demand of Rs.50,000/- by the accused and about the ill–Pooja Kale {7} Cri. Appeal No. 879-2006treatment by them to the deceased Rajeshree. On going throughthe admissions given by all the family members of deceased it hasdefinitely come on record that financial condition of accused wasso poor that they had to reside in slum area. It has come on recordin the cross–examination of complainant – Bajarang that they werehaving joint family of four brothers and his brothers were doingbusiness of floor mill, grocery shop and agricultural business.Moreover, they were also having truck and tractor in their family.Thus it can be inferred safely that the financial condition of familymembers of deceased Rajeshree was too sound as compared to thefinancial condition of the accused. Not only this but the marriedsisters of deceased Rajeshree were also given in rich families andher cousin – Minabai also got married in the rich family. It issignificant to note that the defence of the accused is that Rajeshreecommitted suicide as she was unhappy with their financialcondition and her marriage was performed with accused No.1 –Khandu against her will. It is to be noted here that though thesuggestions given to that effect to the prosecution witnesses aredenied, but from other admissions it has clearly brought on recordthat the financial condition of the accused was too weak ascompared to the financial condition of the parents of the deceasedPooja Kale {8} Cri. Appeal No. 879-2006and even her married sisters.8.It is significant to note that no fresh injuries or old injurymarks were found on the person of deceased Rajeshree except theligature mark. Therefore, it can be safely inferred that soon beforecommission of suicide she was not beaten by the accused.Moreover, it is extremely important to note that the InvestigatingOfficer has stated that though he recorded the statements ofneighbours of the accused family but they did not support thetheory of prosecution of the alleged ill–treatment to the deceased atthe hands of accused. Thus, in absence of such independentevidence of the ill–treatment of the deceased it would be difficult torecord the conviction against the accused under the charge leveledagainst them. On the contrary, the defence raised by the accusedappears probable that the deceased Rajeshree might havecommitted suicide as she was unhappy with the financialcondition of the accused. Therefore, considering all these aspectsthe acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court appears justified.The respondents/accused are definitely entitled for benefit ofdoubt and therefore, no interference is required in the impugnedjudgment of the acquittal. As such, the appeal stands dismissed. [ SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J. ]Pooja Kale