Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 2079
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. Nalawade, A.M. Dhavale, JJ.
State of Maharashtra - Appellant
Vs.
Govind Ramrao Jadhav And Others - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 551 of 2002
Decided On : 09-01-2018
R.V. Dasalkar, Adv., A.M. Gaikwad, Adv.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 34, 498-A and 302 – Order of Acquittal – Appeal is by the State against judgment of acquittal passed by learned II Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case – By the impugned judgment, the husband, brother-in-law and parents-in-law of deceased bride who suffered unnatural death within short period after her marriage were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code. – Held, In the present case we find that the accused have given false explanation that Saptafula might have died of tetanus or due to attack of epilepsy. – They have not given any explanation how she had sustained the injuries. – Therefore, the onus of explaining the facts within the special knowledge of the accused had not been discharged. – The irresistible conclusion that can be drawn is that the accused who were residing of the house or were normally residing in the house must have committed her murder. – There is evidence that all the accused were treating Saptafula well for one year and thereafter, they were harassing her. – The prosecution examined P.W.1 Mohan (uncle), P.W.3 Govinda (father), P.W.4 Kamal (aunt) and P.W.5 Raosaheb. – To none of these witnesses it was suggested that accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 were residing separately from accused No.3. – On the contrary, it was suggested that whenever Saptafula was going to her maternal house, every time accused No.2 used to go her for fetching her for co-habitation. – The evidence nowhere suggests that accused Nos.1 to 4 were not residing together. – Post mortem notes Exh.45 show that Saptafula was provided no meals and she died about 24 hours thereafter. – Her stomach was found empty. – Her maternal relatives came to her matrimonial house. – The accused were absent. Accused No.1 claimed that he alone was present. – The conduct of the accused is also not consistent with their defence. – It is no doubt true that it was by the injuries could have been caused by one or two persons and the other two might not have actually participated, but they were very much present there. – They are consenting parties. – They are not ready to disclose the acts of their family members. – In the light of the verdict in Trimukh vs. State, (2006) AIRSCW 5300, in absence of any acceptable explanation by the accused, court hold accused Nos.1 to 4 to have shared a common intention and committed murder of Saptafula. – The learned Additional Sessions Judge has considered the evidence with a totally wrong approach and came to a wrong conclusion. – Hence, the findings recorded by the trial Judge are not sustainable. – Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the accused deserved to be held guilty under Section 302 read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code. – Offence has taken place around 17 years back. – Court do not find that this will come under the special category of rarest of rare case. – Hence, it is unnecessary to give hearing to the accused when we are sentencing the accused for a minimum sentence of imprisonment for life – Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Dhavale, J.
This appeal is by the State against judgment of acquittal passed by learned II Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No.18/2001 on 10.6.2002. By the impugned judgment, the husband, brother-in-law and parents-in-law of deceased bride who suffered unnatural death within short period after her marriage were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal may be stated as follows:
On 21.10.2000 at 3.45 p.m., F.I.R. Exh.34 was lodged at Osmannagar police station, Taluka Loha, District Nanded by P.W.1 Mohan, uncle of the deceased Saptafula. As per F.I.R., deceased was daughter of P.W.1 Mohan's sister Rajabai resident of Kamlaj, Taluka Loha. She was given in marriage to accused No.3 Babu (A-3) about three years before the incident. The marriage was performed at Kamlaj. Accused No.2 Ramrao and Accused No.4 Sulochana are parents and accused No.1 Govinda is brother of accused No.3 Babu. At the time of marriage, as per agreement, Saptafula's father P.W.3 Govinda had given dowry in the form of Rs.25, 000/- cash with one tola gold and household articles. However, the marriage took place one year late from the agreed date. Saptafula thereafter started cohabiting with her husband at Sugaon and she was treated well for a period of one year, but thereafter they started ill-treating her. They started demanding Rs.10, 000/- and one tola gold on account of delay in marriage. Her husband, parents-in-law and brother-in-law used to assault her and physically and mentally ill-treat her. Her maternal relatives including P.W.1 Mohan tried to persuade her in-laws. Still, Saptafula was assaulted on account of not meeting the demands of the accused persons for additional Rs.10, 000/- and one tola gold and about six months before the incident, she was driven out. She then resided at her maternal house for about six months. Then, there was meeting of her maternal relatives and in-laws and as per the settlement, Saptafula was sent back to her matrimonial house for cohabitation. Saptafula had been to her maternal house for celebration of Nag-panchami festival and at that time, she complained about the ill-treatment by her husband and in-laws with demand of dowry. Still, her maternal relatives persuaded her to resume co-habitation after Nag-panchami was over. On 21.10.2000 at 11.00 a.m., when P.W.1 Mohan was at Ijali village, he received message from one person at Kamlaj that Saptafula had died at Sugaon. His sister Rajabai and her relatives had also arrived there and they came to Sugaon. They found dead body of Saptafula in the house and nobody else was in the house. They noticed several injuries on the chest, ribs, neck and legs. Injuries indicated that she might have died due to dragging by tying with a rope resulting into peeling of her skin and causing bleeding injuries. Saptafula was aged 20 years. He then went to police station and lodged the F.I.R.
3. On the basis of the F.I.R., crime was registered at C.R.No.79/2000 under Sections 498-A, 302 read with S.34 of Indian Penal Code and was investigated into by P.W.7 P.S.I. Kubade. He drew inquest panchnama Exh.36, spot panchnama Exh.37 and sent the dead body for post mortem. He also seized clothes of the deceased under panchnama Exh.38. He recorded statements of material witnesses and arrested the accused No.1 Govind on the same day. The remaining accused were arrested on 23rd October, 2000. He forwarded the seized articles to the office of Chemical Analyst and after completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The prosecution relied on the opinion of the Medical Officer that deceased met with homicidal death by suffocation due to throttling.
4. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Session. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge under Section 498-A and Section 302 read with S.34 o
