IMPORTANT POINT
Cruelty – Exaggerated versions of incident are reflected in a large number of complaints and tendency of over implication is also reflected in a large number of cases – Courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences by such persons.

JUDGMENT

C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.

Leave granted.

1. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2020, passed by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.1014 of 2014, which was heard along with Criminal Appeal No.14/2015, both arising from a common judgment in two Sessions Cases emerged from a single First Information Report. The appellant was the second appellant in Criminal Appeal No.1014 of 2014 which was partly allowed under the impugned judgment whereunder, his conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’) was confirmed and the sentence imposed therefor was commuted to the period of imprisonment already undergone.

2. The second respondent, who is the father of the deceased Renuka, lodged FIR No.87/11 before Wadala T.T. Police Station on 17.04.2011 on her unnatural death occurred on 16.04.2011. Two Sessions Cases viz., 621/2011 and 853/2011 emerged therefrom. The first and sixth accused in the crime faced trial in the former Sessions Case and the appellant herein along with others faced trial in the latter Sessions Case, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 and 406 read with Section 34, IPC. After the joint trial, all the accused were convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34, IPC, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 2 months. Since in this appeal we are only concerned with the appellant, the 3rd accused, we are not going to refer to the details of conviction of others except to the extent necessary, at the appropriate place. The appellant herein was the third accused in the said crime after subjected to trial in SC No.853/2011 and in respect of all the other offences he was acquitted. It is against the conviction and the modified sentence handed down for the aforesaid offence that he along with the co-convicts in the said Sessions Case filed Criminal Appeal No.1014 of 2014.

3. The case of the prosecution is as under: -

The daughter of the second respondent, Renuka- the victim, was married to the first accused Rajesh Jagan Karote on 11.12.2008 as per Hindu customs and rituals. The said Rajesh Jagan Karote and his relatives demanding dowry for purchasing a residential flat and used to torture her physically and mentally. On 16.04.2011 at about 9.00 pm the appellant herein, who is the husband of Savita, one of the sisters-in-law of the deceased, informed the second respondent that Renuka was admitted in Sion Hospital at Mumbai and by the time the second respondent along with his wife, children and other relatives reached the hospital Renuka breathed her last. On her body he noticed abrasion on forehead and ligature marks on the neck. Suspecting the death of his daughter as unnatural death, he lodged a complaint which resulted in the registration of the aforementioned FIR and ultimately, the consequential trial of the accused. The appellant herein was also implicated as one of the accused and as noted hereinbefore, he stood the trial which culminated in his conviction under Section 498-A, IPC, and consequential imposition of sentence, as mentioned hereinbefore.

4. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties.

5. Manifold contentions were raised by the appellant to assail the judgment of conviction passed by the High Court confirming his conviction under Section 498-A, IPC. Though the sentence imposed therefor by the trial Court was interfered with by the High Court in the appeal and converted it to the sentence already undergone the appellant is aggrieved inasmuch as pursuant to his conviction and consequently imposed sentence he was terminated from the post of Laboratory Attendant, Balbheem College, Beed, as per order dated 23.11.2015. It is the contention of the appellant that the very case of the prosecution is that since January,