Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 1437
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
ROHIT B. DEO, J.
Lakhanlal Ramkishor Patalbanshi - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 653 of 2002
Decided On : 11-09-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Rajasi A. Mardikar, Advocate h/f A.S. Mardikar, Senior Advocate
For the Respondent: A.V. Palshikar, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused subjected the deceased to cruelty as per the provisions of section 498A of the I.P.C. in order to establish the offence.
Headnote:
498A - Cruelty - I.P.C. - 498A, 306
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellant for offences under section 498A and 306 of the I.P.C. based on the suicide of the appellant's wife. The central issue was whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and forced to commit suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty as per the provisions of section 498A of the I.P.C. Consequently, the court acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under section 498A and 306 of the I.P.C.
Issues: The key issues revolved around establishing the cruelty as per the provisions of section 498A of the I.P.C. and determining whether the accused instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence presented was grossly insufficient to establish that the accused subjected the deceased to ill-treatment within the meaning of explanation (a) and (b) of section 498A of the I.P.C. The court also noted the unreliable and contradictory nature of the witnesses' testimonies.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment, acquitted the accused of the offences punishable under section 498A and 306 of the I.P.C., and discharged the bail bond.
1. Exception is taken to judgment dated 22.11.2002 in Sessions Trial 223/1999 delivered by the 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, by and under which, the appellant is convicted for offence punishable under section 498A of the I.P.C. and for offence punishable under section 306 of the I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and seven years respectively.
2. Heard Ms. Rajasi Mardikar, the learned counsel for the appellant and Shri A.V. Palshikar, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.
3. The genesis of the prosecution is an oral report (Exh.16) dated 01.06.1999 lodged by Hariprasad Kashyap at Police Station Mana, the gist of which is thus:
Hariprasad Kashyap stated in the police report that the marriage of his daughter Saroja and Lakhanlal Ramkishor Patalbanshi was solemnized on 08.05.1998. Saroja visited her parental house at Sukali on the occasion of Ashadhi, Nagpanchmi, Raksha Bandhan, Diwali and Holi. Hariprasad Kashyap (hereinafter referred to as “the informant”) further states that he went to Mana to bring Saroja on the occasion of the marriage of son of the informant. During the said period, Saroja conveyed to the informant that Lakhanlal and his mother Fulkali are demanding Rs.30,000/-“ for the purpose of service” and a two wheeler as well and that on her refusal Lakhanlal and his mother Fulkali are harassing her. Informant further states that Lakhanlal came to Sukali to escort Saroja back to her matrimonial home on 10.05.1999. Saroja told to the informant that due to harassment she would continue to stay in the parental home for one to one and half month. The informant pacified Saroja and told her that he would come to her matrimonial house after 15 days and would settle all the problems. The informant further states that Saroja had made disclosure about the demand to his other son Bhaiyalal and to his friend Rajendra Gawande. The informant further states that since Saroja was illtreated by her husband Lakhanlal and his mother Fulkali, she was driven to commit suicide. On the basis of the said oral report First Information Report Exh.17 was registered and offence punishable under section 498A and 306 of I.P.C. against Lakhanlal and Fulkali.
4. The completion of the investigation led to chargesheet being submitted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Murtizapur who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.12. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is of false implication. In the statement recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure a specific defence is taken that Saroja was suffering from schizophrenia and was being treated by one Dr. Ramkumar Gujar. The said Doctor is examined as defence witness 1.
5. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit Fulkali the mother of the appellant Lakhanlal (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) and convict the accused for offence punishable under section 498A and 306 of I.P.C.
6. Concededly, Saroja committed suicide on 31.05.1999 within less than one year and a month of the marriage. That the death was suicidal was not challenged by the defence. The central issue is whether Saroja was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of explanation (a) and (b) of section 498A of I.P.C. and whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Saroja was forced to commit suicide due to the illtreatment to which she was allegedly subjected.
7. The informant who is the father of Saroja is examined as P.W.1. He states that there was no complaint or grievance from Saroja when she came to her parental house on the occasion of Nagpanchami, Diwali and Holi. P.W.1 states that it was on the occasion of the marriage of Bhaiyalal that Saroja conveyed that the accused had asked her to demand Rs.30,000/- from her father (P.W.1). Saroja conveyed that the accused has received interview call.
8. P.W.1 stat
