Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1350
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A.M. Badar, J.
Chandrakant Bhikaji Zore – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 755 of 1997
Decided On : 07-02-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : D.R. More, Nitesh Mohite.
For the Respondent: S.V. Gavand.
Headnote:
Indian Evidence Act - Section 113-A - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 306 and 498-A – Anticipatoryd Bail - Sentenced To Suffer - Illicit Relations - Ill-Treating His Wife - Beat Her - Disclose Harassment And Cruelty Suffered - Appellant/Accused was resident and District - He married (since deceased) - On that day itself brother of appellant/accused also get married - After marriage started cohabiting with appellant/accused at village District - According to prosecution case soon after his marriage who happens to be brother of appellant/accused left and joined his service - He used to return to his house at native place occasionally - Because of continuous absence illicit relations between his wife and appellant/accused were developed - Because of this illicit relations appellant/ accused started ill-treating his wife - He used to beat her - His parents also used to subject to cruelty - She used to disclose harassment and cruelty suffered by her to her parents viz – Held, Court has also held appellant/accused guilty of offence of abetting commission of suicide by his wife - Presumption as envisaged under Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act can be applied only when a married woman commit suicide within seven years of her marriage and when prosecution establishes fact that she was subjected to cruelty by accused persons - This by itself is not enough - Court is bound to have regard to other circumstances of case and then only presumption regarding abetment to commit suicide can be raised by resorting to provisions of Section 113-A of Indian Evidence Act - As prosecution has failed to establish fact that deceased was subjected to cruelty aid of this provision cannot be taken for inferring guilt of accused - Allegations made against appellant/accused as seen from evidence are not of such a nature as would drive a married woman to commit suicide - They are not of sufficient gravity in light of fact that alleged illicit relations between appellant/accused and his sister-in-law are not proved by adducing evidence of quality required in criminal trial - Allegations against appellant/accused coming on record from mouth of parents of deceased are not of sufficient gravity - Appeal Is Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
A.M. Badar, J.
1. On 22nd December 2018, this Court (Coram: N.J. Jamadar, J.) was pleased to direct issuance of bailable warrant against the appellant/accused No. 1. In pursuant to this Order, bailable warrant was executed and that is how the appellant/accused No. 1 is present before this Court. This is how his appeal was required to be taken for final hearing.
2. By this appeal, the appellant/accused No. 1 is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 14.11.1997 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri in Sessions Case No. 11 of 1996 thereby convicting the appellant/accused No. 1 of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused No. 1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years apart from imposition of fine of Rs. 200/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for two months. For the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months apart from imposition of fine of Rs. 100/- and default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one month. The learned trial Court had directed that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
3. Facts in brief leading to prosecution and resultant sentence of the appellant/accused no. 1 Chandrakant Zore can be summarized thus:
(a) Appellant/accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore was resident of Sharadadevi, Dhangarwadi, Taluka and District Ratnagiri. In May 1994, he married Sai Zore (since deceased). On that day itself brother of the appellant/accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore namely Baban also get married. After marriage, Sai Zore started cohabiting with appellant/accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore at village Sharadadevi, Dhangarwadi in Ratnagiri District. PW-1 Dhondu Bhoje is father whereas PW-2 Bhagirthi Bhoje is mother of Sai Zore. According to the prosecution case, soon after his marriage, Baban, who happens to be brother of appellant/accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore left Sharadadevi, Dhangarwadi and joined his service at Mumbai. He used to return to his house at the native place occasionally. Because of continuous absence of Baban, illicit relations between his wife and appellant/accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore were developed. Because of this illicit relations, appellant/ accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore started ill-treating his wife Sai. He used to beat her. His parents also used to subject Sai to cruelty. She used to disclose harassment and cruelty suffered by her to her parents viz. PW-1 Dhondu Bhoje and PW-2 Bhagirthi Bhoje.
(b) Ultimately, unable to bear with continuous torture of her husband and in laws, Sai Zore indulged in self-effacement by jumping in the well on 26.09.1995. PW-3 Sushila saw Sai Zore drowning in the well. The incident was reported to PW-1 Dhondu Bhoje by a villager. Therefore, he along with his wife PW-2 Bhagirthi Bhoje went to village Sharadadevi, Dhangarwadi. They saw dead body of Sai Zore. Therefore, on 26.07.1995 itself, PW-1 Dhondu Bhoje lodged report with Ratnagiri Rural Police Station which resulted in registration of Crime No. 66 of 1995 for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against appellant/accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore and his parents.
(c) During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer took inquest notes and dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The spot was inspected and spot panchanama came to be recorded. Statement of witnesses were also recorded. On completion of investigation, appellant/accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore and his parents were charge- sheeted.
(d) The learned trial Court framed the explained charge for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to accused persons. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(e) In order to bring home the guilt to appellant/accused No. 1 Chandrakant Zore so also t
