Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1376
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
V.M. DESHPANDE, J.
Tulshiram s/o Wadguji Kawade – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.60 of 2002
Decided On : 17-10-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. M.P. Khajanchi, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, A.P.P.
The central legal point established is the requirement for scrupulous examination of evidence in cases of abetment of suicide and the need for corroborated evidence of harassment in cases of Section 498-A.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under Sections 306 and 498-A - [306, 498-A, 34]
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and abetting her suicide. The deceased was the wife of appellant no.3 and her relatives alleged ill-treatment and demand of dowry by the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence of ill-treatment and demand of dowry was not properly corroborated, and the marriage of the deceased was against her wish. The Court also noted that the deceased's suicide note did not implicate appellant no.3, the husband. Consequently, the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged cruelty, abetment of suicide, and demand of dowry by the appellants, and the validity of the prosecution's evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the need for scrupulous examination of the facts and circumstances in cases of abetment of suicide. It also highlighted the requirement of direct or indirect acts of incitement to suicide and the need for corroborated evidence of harassment in cases of Section 498-A. The Court stressed the importance of properly evaluating the prosecution's case and drawing adverse inferences for non-examination of the Investigating Officer.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of conviction were quashed and set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges.
1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction passed by learned 2nd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur in Sessions Case No.59/1998 dated 20.12.2001 by which each of the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and was ordered to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- by each of them and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. They were also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC and on that ground the sentence is sufferance of one year rigorous imprisonment for each of them and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 15 days, the appellants are before this Court. The appellant nos.1 and 2 are father and mother in law of the deceased Nita. The appellant no.3 is husband of the deceased.
The appellants were charged by the learned Judge of the trial Court that they, in furtherance of their common intention, subjected the deceased Nita to cruelty by willful conduct which was of such a nature as was likely to drive her to commit suicide and also harassed her mentally and physically by demanding Rs.50,000/- to her and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
They were also charged that on 16.03.1998, the deceased Nita committed suicide at Ghuggus by hanging herself and the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, abetted her to commit suicide by subjecting her to humiliation and cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the IPC.
2. I have heard Mr. M. P. Khajanchi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mrs. K.R. Deshpande, learned A.P.P. for the State. Both of them took me through the record and proceedings of the sessions case in detail.
3. The marriage between the appellant no.3 and the deceased in the year 1997 is not in dispute. Dr. Narayan Daware (PW2) has performed autopsy over the dead body of Nita when the same was brought to General Hospital, Chandrapur on 17.3.1998. He proved the post mortem notes (Exh.-22). According to the evidence of the Doctor, the deceased died due to hanging resulting into injury to vital organs like brain, heart and lungs due to strangulation and shock.
4. It is not the defence that the death has occurred due to any accident. Similarly, the prosecution has not charged the appellants that they have committed homicidal death of Nita nor they were put to on trial for the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the IPC.
In that view of the matter, it will be seen as to whether there is sufficient evidence available on record to affirm their respective convictions as imposed upon them by the Court below.
5. The prosecution has examined in all 13 witnesses. Whereas the appellants also examined one defence witness. According to the written statement which the appellants had filed before the Court below at the time of their examination under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure and which is available on record at Exh.-50, Nita was not happy with her marriage with appellant no.3. According to their defence, her marriage was performed with appellant no.3 by her parents against her wish and she was not ready to reside in their house.
6. In order to prove the guilt, the prosecution has examined Bapurao Lohakare (PW1), father of the deceased, Raju Lohakare (PW3) brother of the deceased, Kamalbai Lohakare (PW4) mother of the deceased, Vimlabai Bhongale (PW6) neighbour of the parents of the deceased, Diksha Pazare (PW7) sister of the deceased, Ulhas Gawande (PW10) husband of another sister of the deceased.
Naresh Moon (PW9), Sk. Layeeb s/o Sk. Gani (PW11), Sakharam Shiwarkar (PW12) are the panch witnesses. Sou. Kavita Tipale (PW13), who is neighbour of the appellant, has not supported the prosecution.
Sadhu
