Back
2012 Supreme(Bom) 571
In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad
NARESH H. PATIL & T.V. NALAWADE, JJ.
Kamal W/o Shamrao Ghodake & Another
Versus
State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.403 OF 2010 & CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.419 OF 2010
Decided on : 15-03-2012
For the Appellants:S.S. Choudhari, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Smt. V.A. Shinde, APP.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on credible evidence, including witness testimony and medical reports, to establish the guilt of the accused.
Headnote:
I.P.C. - Offences against Women - Sections 302, 498-A, 304 Part II - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the appellants for offences under Sections 302, 498-A of I.P.C. The incident revolves around the ill treatment and demand for money from the complainant by the accused, leading to the tragic death of the complainant's daughter.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 and acquitted the appellants from Appeal No.403/10 of the charge under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P.C.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the evidence of ill treatment, demand for money, and the circumstances leading to the tragic incident. The court also considered the credibility of witnesses and the medical evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the complainant, medical reports, and circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also emphasized the need for credible and consistent evidence to establish the charges.
Final Decision: The court dismissed Criminal Appeal No.419/2010 and acquitted the appellants from Appeal No.403/10. The judgment and order of the lower court convicting the appellants were quashed and set aside.
Nalawade, J.
Both the appeals are filed against judgment and order of Sessions Case No.110/2009 which is decided by Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad. The appellant from Criminal Appeal No.419/10 is convicted and sentenced for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A of I.P.C. The appellants from Criminal Appeal No.403/10 are convicted and sentenced for offence punishable under Section 498-A r.w. 34 of I.P.C. Both sides are heard.
2. Complainant Shridevi is the wife of appellant Bhimrao [from Appeal No.419/10]. Appellant Kamal from other appeal is the mother of Bhimrao and the appellant Sunita is a sister of Bhimrao. Sunita was unmarried at the relevant time. One Nandkumar, maternal uncle of Bhimrao and one Dhondiba, brother of Bhimrao were also made accused in the Sessions case but they are acquitted of all the offences. It was submitted that the State has not challenged that part of decision given by the trial Court.
3. Shridevi was given in marriage to Bhimrao in the year 2006. After the marriage, Shridevi started cohabiting with Bhimrao in village Revalgaon, Tq. Ambad, Dist.Jalna, as Bhimrao was working as a teacher at Revalgaon. Other accused persons were living in village Andoor, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad which is native place of Bhimrao. It is the case of prosecution that after 7 to 8 months of the marriage, accused Sunita went to Revalgaon and she started staying there with the family of Bhimrao and the trouble started after shifting of Sunita to Revalgaon.
4. It is the case of prosecution that accused Sunita was instigating Bhimrao to ask complainant to bring Rs.1 lakh from her parents. She was also instigating to harass the complainant on that count. Due to such instigation, Bhimrao started asking complainant to bring money from her parents and he also started harassing her, which include giving beating to her. Complainant expressed that her parents were not in a position to give such amount but Bhimrao continued to make said demand.
5. It is the case of prosecution that when the demand of Bhimrao was not met with by the complainant and her parents, Bhimrao shifted the residence of complainant to Andoor. It is contended that at Andoor, ill treatment was given to complainant by Bhimrao, his mother and his sister Sunita. It is contended that they continued to make their demand of Rs.1 Lakh. When the demand was not met with, they sent complainant to her parents house. It is the case of prosecution that the complainant was taken to matrimonial house by relatives of complainant on parents side and she was left there after convincing Bhimrao and his relatives that the parents of complainant were not in a position to meet the demand. Bhimrao and his relatives however, continued to give ill treatment to the complainant. Allegations were made against accused no.4 Nandkumar who is acquitted, that he had given beating to complainant after visiting Andoor and he had said that he was ready to give his daughter in marriage to Bhimrao, if Bhimrao was ready to send complainant to her parents house.
6. It is the case of prosecution that complainant was then sent to her parents house for delivery. Complainant gave birth to a female child, the deceased Pranjal. Eight days prior to the date of incident in question, Bhimrao went to the house of parents of complainant and he brought back complainant and Pranjal to Andoor. Bhimrao had promised the parents of complainant that he would not give ill treatment to complainant.
7. The incident took place on 9/2/2009 at Andoor near the house of Bhimrao at about 12 noon. Complainant, Bhimrao and accused nos.2 and 3 were present in the house. It is the case of prosecution that Bhimrao and accused nos.2 and 3 picked up quarrel with complainant as their demand of Rs.1 Lakh was not met with. It is contended that during quarrel, instigation was given by accused nos.2 and 3 to Bhimrao and then Bhimrao said to complainant that he would finish Pranjal if the demand is not met with. It i
