JUDGMENT - B.U. WAHANE, J.:--- "ªÉjÉ xÉɪÉxiÉÚ {ÉÖVªÉiÉä, iÉjÉ ®ô¨ÉxiÉä näù´ÉiÉ:" This is one facet of our Indian Society towards the woman while the other is that fþÉä±É, MÉ´ÉÉ®ô, ¶ÉÖnù, {ɶÉÖ, xÉÉ®ôÒ ªÉ½ø ºÉ¤É iÉÉbýxÉ Eäò +ÊvÉ EòÉ®ôÒ. The true translations whereof are --- "(i) Whereever women are highly respected, society prospers and moves forward, fast with stability" and "(ii) The drum, the rustic, the Shudra, the animal and the women are all entitled to receive beating. Besides this Indian philosophy regarding the woman folk, we speak of modernisation and humanitarism, but barbarism and inhumanitarism is still experienced, day in and day out. In this case we have to deal with an episode of a young married woman who died of starvation in the cattle shed of her in-laws' house.

2. The original accused preferred this appeal against their conviction for the offence punishable under sections 342 and 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bhandara on 13-5-1992 in Session Trial No. 24/90. The facts leading to the institution of the case against the appellants may be described in brief as under.

3. Deceased Sitabai, sister of Motilal Mahadeo Shahu (P.W.4) of Nagpur was married with the appellant/accused No.1, Mithailal s/o Rajaram Sahu, resident of Deori, District Bhandara on 20-2-1975. The appellant No.2, Pappu @ Hiralal is brother of the appellant No.1 Mithailal. Appellant/accused No.3, Rampyaribai is mother of the appellants 1 and 2, whereas the appellant/accused No.4, Shivkumari is the wife of the appellant/accused No.2.

Deceased Sitabai was the only sister of five brothers including Motilal (P.W.4). All the brothers and the mother spent considerable amount in the marriage of deceased Sitabai. They had presented golden ornaments and cash of Rs. 10,000/- to the accused No.1, during the said marriage. After marriage, Sitabai went to reside with accused No.1, Mithailal at Deori. At Deori, the appellants/accused had a big Wada (big residential house), agriculture and other joint property. For few days, Sitabai was treated cordially. Thereafter the appellants persuaded her to demand and bring money from her brothers. On refusal of reward, she was subjected to cruelty and torture. She was not even provided with food and at the instance of others, the accused /appellant No.1. used to beat her. The appellant No.2, had molested her in the house. On that occasion, Sitabai had reported the matter to the Police Station and the offence was registered against him under section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. Sometimes in the year 1984 a telephonic message was received by the uncle of Motilal (P.W.4.) at Hansapuri, Nagpur to the effect that Sitabai was hospitalised at Deori. Consequently, Motilal and his brothers as also some other relations went to Deori. However, they found that the message was false. Sitabai had complained to her brothers, and others about ill-treatment at the hands of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 viz. Mithailal and Pappu. Anyhow, the brothers persuaded the accused not to ill-treat her. Motilal again received another telegram dated 7-7-1984 from Deori and therefore, he and other brothers went to Deori and found the condition of their sister Sitabai serious. The brothers tried to persuade Sitabai to accompany them. However, she refused to accompany with them and told them that she would like to live and cohabit with her husband at Deori only. In their presence, Sitabai was kept in a room in the another house of the appellants situated near Laxmi Talkies at Deori. However, considering the plight of Sitabai, she was brought to Nagpur where she stayed till 19th January, 1989. Before deceased Sitabai had left the abode of her husband in the year 1984, she had sent letters addressed to her brothers expressing her own plight. The letters have been placed on record. In those letters she had specifically stated that the accused had directed her to bring considerable money fro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document