Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 1654
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
N.W. Sambre, J.
Tulsiram, S/o Shankar Bramhane and Ors. - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 8 of 2004
Decided On : 19-09-2016
For the Petitioners: Ms. Varsha Ghanekar, Mr. N.S. Ghanekar.
For the Respondent: Mr. K.D. Munde.
The main legal point established is the court's consideration of the evidence of dowry demand and assault, along with the age and health conditions of the accused persons in reaching the decision.
Headnote:
Dowry Demand - Criminal Conviction - Indian Penal Code 498-A, 323, 506 r/w. 34 - The court upheld the conviction of the accused persons under section 498-A and 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also considered the age and health conditions of the accused persons and ordered their release on probation.
Fact of the Case:
The accused were convicted for offences under section 498-A, 323, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code for dowry demand and assault. The accused appealed against the conviction, which was dismissed, leading to the present Revision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the involvement of the accused in the crime was proved beyond reasonable doubt based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the injuries suffered by the victim.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand of dowry, assault, and the age and health conditions of the accused persons.
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction based on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and the injuries suffered by the victim. The court also considered the age and health conditions of the accused persons in ordering their release on probation.
Final Decision: The court ordered the release of the accused persons on probation, with specific conditions for two of the accused and simpliciter release for the other two accused.
N.W. Sambre, J.
The present revision is against the order of conviction.
2. The facts in brief as are necessary for deciding the Revision are as under:-
3. Original complainant – Rekhabai was married to accused No. 1 - Tulsiram sometime in 1990. As there was demand of dowry of Rs. 10,000/-, a crime came to be registered being Crime No. 58 of 1995. Charge came to be framed against the present applicants at Exhibit 22 for the offences punishable under section 498-A, 323, 506 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution has examined the original complainant PW1 – Rekhabai at Exhibit 32, PW2 – Ramlal Hase at Exhibit 37 - father of Rekha, PW3 – Bhausaheb Hase at Exhibit 38 and PW4 – Dr. Korale.
4. The learned Magistrate, after considering the evidence brought in before it, has ordered conviction of the accused persons. Accused – Tulsiram, Shankar, Ananda and Rukhmanbai were held to be guilty for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for the offences punishable under section 498-A r/w. 34 and for six months for the offences punishable under section 323 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with fine of Rs. 200/- on each count, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 month and 15 days respectively. Accused persons were acquitted of the offence punishable under section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. In appeal against conviction, being Appeal No. 32 of 2002, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad confirmed the conviction and dismissed the appeal. As such, the present Revision.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the learned A.P.P. for the respondent.
7. from the record, it is brought to my notice that petitioner No. 2 – Shankar and petitioner No. 4 - Rukhmanbai are more than 75 years of their age, are handicap and blind and as such, the non-bailable warrants issued against them, were not executed.
8. While trying to make out case for grant of acquittal, learned counsel for the petitioners made three fold submissions :
(a) That PW1 – Rekha, while deposing as the prosecution witness, has stated that the complaint in question came to be lodged out of mis-understanding.
(b) Second limb of submission is that there was compromise in between petitioner No. 1 – Tulsiram and PW1 – Rekha and divorce deed is already executed.
(c) The third limb of submission is taking the overall appreciation of the evidence, as is brought on record, there is clear cut case of acquittal and as such, according to her, the Revision needs to be allowed.
An alternate submission is made that the petitioners be released on the undergone sentences or by taking recourse to the Probation of Offenders Act.
9. The fact remains that accused No. 1 – Tulsiram and accused No. 3 – Ananda are behind bar in the present case, pursuant to the non-bailable warrants executed, as were ordered by this Court.
10. While opposing the Revision, the learned A.P.P. submits that both the Courts below have concurrently held that the involvement of the petitioners/accused in the crime in question was proved beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, all the facets of the matter, including that of the date of marriage, date of the assault, evidence of PW4 and injuries suffered by PW1 - Rekha, were forming the basis of conviction. He would submit that the Revision needs to be dismissed.
11. Having bestowed my thoughts to the submissions made and upon appreciation of the evidence, as is brought on record, it is required to be noted that PW1 – Rekha, along with her father PW2 – Ramlal, have in clear terms, supported the case of the prosecution. Both the witnesses have brought on record that there was demand of dowry and from the evidence of PW4 – Dr. Korale, the injuries suffered by PW1 - Rekha were very much proved.
12. Apart from above, both the Courts below have minutely analysed the evidence brought on record by the
