Back
2006(4) Supreme 419
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
Sahebrao and Anr.—Appellants
versus
State of Maharashtra—Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1507 of 2005
Decided on 3-5-2006
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Sudhanshu Choudhary, Naresh Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondent : V.N. Raghupathy, Advocate.
Held : The settled principle of law of this Court is that delay in filing FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging the FIR would put the Court on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been offered and if offered whether it is satisfactory.(Para 6)
It has come in evidence that when the father reached Village Babulkheda at about 1.00 P.M. on 08-09-1990 he found his daughter dead and nobody was present in the house. When the police came and made inquiries he said that he was shocked and was not mentally fit to lodge the complaint and would do so later on. After finding her newly wedded daughter’s dead body in her matrimonial home where he had left her just before a day of incident, it was very natural for a father to lose his tranquility of mind. Hence if such grief-stricken father had told the police that he would give the complaint afterwards, it was not unnatural or unusual. PW-6, who was posted at Shivoor Police Station, had also deposed about the fact that when the father was asked about the incident he had stated that he would lodge the complaint later on as he was disturbed. Two courts below have found the explanation given by the prosecution to be satisfactory and sufficient for a delay in complaint.(Para 8)
There is evidence on record of PW-1 that when his daughter came back to his place she started weeping and told the complainant about the harassment inflicted upon her on account of non-payment of Rs.10,000/-. This found support in the statements of PW-3 and PW-4. The evidence shows that even the demand was made through the younger brother Mansub when he went to the place of the complainant. PW-1 has further mentioned that in the end of jaishth month, he went to village Babulkheda to see his daughter and was insulted by the accused persons for not fulfilling their demand and they asked him to take her back to village Pathri. It is said by PW-1 that just 8 days before the incident when the deceased last visited her maiden home she told him that she was beaten and also showed marks of beating on her body. She was weeping and requested him not to send her back to village Babulkheda without satisfying the demand of the accused persons. The evidence clearly establishes that the accused persons were consistent in their demand regarding additional amount of Rs. 10,000/- even after their initial demand of tape recorder was fulfilled. The evidence clearly establishes that the deceased was harassed at her matrimonial home and her staying there had become miserable. The deceased on several occasions, within a short span of four months of her marriage, informed her father that she was being troubled by her husband and his elder brother. They also insulted and taunted her father in her presence and asked PW-1 to take her back to his home for his inability to fulfill their unlawful demand. The reluctance shown by the deceased to go to her matrimonial home within a short period of her marriage is indicative of the fact of the treatment given to her. At her matrimonial home, she was harassed and constantly nagged for non-payment of additional amount by her father. The facts clearly establish that husband and his elder brother subjected the deceased to cruelty and their conviction under Section 498-A, IPC is based on cogent reliable evidence.(Para 13)
The appellants were also convicted under Section 306 IPC with the aid of the presumption as to the abetment of suicide by a married woman under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is proved by the prosecution that Sangita committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband and his elder brother subjected her to cruelty. On the basis of the evidence, it can be said that the cruel treatment meted out to the deceased was of such a nature that it has driven the lady to commit suicide.(Para 14)
Neither any evidence was led by the defence nor from the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, we can draw a plausible, reasonable and trustworthy explanation to rebut the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act. The prosecution has sufficiently proved by cogent evidence that the accused-appellants by series of acts and conduct created such a difficult and hostile environment for the deceased that she was compelled to commit suicide. In the light of the discussion in regard to the cruelty committed by the accused persons to the deceased under Section 498-A, IPC, there is a direct and reasonable nexus with the commission of suicide by the deceased with the act of cruelty to which the deceased was subjected to by the accused-appellants.(Para 16)
JUDGMENT
P.P. Naolekar, J.—The accused appellants Sahebrao (A-1) and Bhausaheb (A-2) were tried along with their mother Shanti Bai (A-3) for committing offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment dated 06.06.1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Section 306 and 498-A, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 306 IPC. No separate sentence was passed under Section 498-A, IPC. A-3 was acquitted. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused appellants filed an appeal before Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The High Court by its order dated 31-01-2005 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence passed by the trial Court. That is how the appellants are before us in this appeal.
2. The relevant facts deduced from the evidence are that the marriage of accused-appellant A-2, resident of Village Babulkheda, and deceased-Sangita, daughter of the complainant-Ramrao Laxman Darekar (PW-1), took place on 13-05-1990 at Village Pathri. The distance between Village Pathri and Babulkheda was 15 Kms. Just after the marriage, A-2 insisted for a tape recorder. PW-1 persuaded that the tape recorder would be given to him in due course of time. Three days after the marriage, the elder son of PW-1, Sudam (PW-3) along with his matenal uncle, Karbhari Vithal Jadavh (PW-4) went to village Babulkheda to take the deceased back to Village Pathri. On return, PW-3 told his father PW-1 that elder brother of A-2, accused-appellant Sahebrao (A-1) was demanding additional dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the dowry paid at the time of marriage was not as per their status and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. The deceased stayed with her father for 5-6 days and thereafter, Ambadas on return told PW-1 that A-1 was demanding Rs. 10,000/- and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. About 2-3 days later, PW-1 went to his daughter’s matrimonial home. She told him that A-1 and A-2 were troubling her for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a tape recorder. PW-1 though expressed his inability to pay the amount, sent PW-3 to Aurangabad for purchasing the tape recorder. After 5-6 days, PW-3 and PW-4 went to the matrimonial home of Sangita, gave the tape recorder to the accused persons and took her to her parent’s place at Village Pathari. After a week, Mansub-younger brother of A-2, came to the house of PW-1 to take her back to Village Babulkheda and informed him that A-1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the deceased would not accompany him unless the amount is given. He also informed PW-1 that A-1 would get angry if the amount was not paid PW-1 somehow managed to send the deceased to her matrimonial home along with Mansub. In the month of ‘Jaistha’, when PW-1 went to see his daughter, accused persons started questioning him as to why he had not paid the amount and asked him to take his daughter back. The deceased was taken back by PW-1 and she stayed at her maiden home for a month. Mansub, once again came to take her back to the matrimonial home. This time also, Mansub, demanded the additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. In September 1990 the deceased came back to her father’s place and on reaching there she started weeping loudly and told PW-1 and her mother that she was beaten by the accused persons and pointed out the marks of beating on her back and requested PW-1 not to send her back to Village Babulkheda. However, in the hope that situation would improve, PW-1 left his reluctant daughter to the matrimonial home on 06-09-1990. That time also A-2 told him that since the amount was not given PW-1 should take back his daughter. While returning back to his village on 07-09-1990, the deceased daughter met him on the way and told him that it would be very difficult for her to stay and also that he might not see her again.
3. On 08-09-199
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
