Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD BENCH
Sunil K. Kotwal, J.
Kaduba - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 493 of 2001
Decided On : 20-03-2018
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 506 and 509 - Abetment of suicide - Insult modesty of any woman - Cause of death "shock due to burns - Appeal against Conviction - Informant PW-1who is resident of village had a daughter namely Savita who used to take education in 9th Class in Gurukul High School - For that purpose she used to reside at the residence of PW-2) who was her cousin paternal grandfather. At the relevant time the accused was also completing his study in 9th Standard, but in a separate Division A. PW-9 was also student of the 9th Class in Division-A in the same School. Savita and Vanita were friends and they used to go to school together from their respective residences which were adjoining to each other. On way to school accused used to tease Vanita and subsequently he started teasing even Savita - Parents of these both girl students made oral and written complaint to the Headmaster of Gurukul High School against the accused. Despite giving understanding and warning to the accused, no positive result could be achieved and he continued his act of teasing to these both girl students - After attending annual examination paper in the School, Savita returned to her house and set herself ablaze. Hearing shouts of Savita, her neighbours including PW-8 rushed on the spot and extinguished the fire. However, by that time Savita sustained severe burn injuries - PW-2 was informed. He took the injured Savita to Primary Health Centre, Medical Officer, known by local name as "Ghati Hospital - Though Savita was admitted in Ghati Hospital, she succumbed to her burn injuries - Held, I have no hesitation to hold that though the prosecution has proved that prior to the date of the incident accused teased the deceased by blowing whistles and by following her on road, that would not be sufficient to hold that accused intentionally instigated or aided the suicide committed by the deceased - In other words, prosecution cannot establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused abetted the suicide committed by deceased - In circumstances, High Court held that nexus in between act of the accused and suicidal death is missing and therefore, abetment of the suicide cannot be established - These both cases are distinguishable on facts, I must consider suicidal note which was found by police on the spot. The suicidal note was referred to Handwriting Expert and he opined that it is in handwriting of the deceased The suicidal note and opinion of the Handwriting Expert are admitted by defense - It is also not mentioned in the suicidal note that she was going to commit suicide as she was fed up with the harassment by accused, otherwise also suicidal note itself ruled out the possibility of commission of suicide by deceased only on account of teasing by accused on road. But this note creates possibility of commission of suicide by Savita due to other tension in the school or at home, benefit of doubt goes in favour of accused - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT
Sunil K. Kotwal,J. - Vires of the judgment passed by Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 80/1999, dated 23.11.2001 is challenged by the original accused, where the accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "I.P.C." for brevity) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months, and for the offence punishable under Section 509 of the I.P.C. the accused is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one week. Respondent is State of Maharashtra.
2. Brief facts of the prosecution case, in nutshell, are that the informant Raosaheb Sampatrao Aher (PW-1), who is the resident of village Takali, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad, had a daughter namely Savita who used to take education in 9th Class in Gurukul High School at Verul. For that purpose she used to reside at the residence of Gulabrao Baburao Aher (PW-2) who was her cousin paternal grandfather. At the relevant time the accused was also completing his study in 9th Standard, but in a separate Division A. Vanita Gajbhar (PW-9) was also student of the 9th Class in Division-A in the same School. Savita and Vanita were friends and they used to go to school together from their respective residences which were adjoining to each other. On way to school accused used to tease Vanita and subsequently he started teasing even Savita. Parents of these both girl students made oral and written complaint to the Headmaster of Gurukul High School against the accused. Despite giving understanding and warning to the accused, no positive result could be achieved and he continued his act of teasing to these both girl students.
3. On 15.04.1998, after attending annual examination paper in the School, Savita returned to her house and set herself ablaze. Hearing shouts of Savita, her neighbours including Pramila Ajmera (PW-8) rushed on the spot and extinguished the fire. However, by that time Savita sustained severe burn injuries. Therefore, Gulabrao Aher (PW-2) was informed. He took the injured Savita to Primary Health Centre, Verul. However, Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Verul referred Savita to Civil Hospital, Aurangabad, known by local name as "Ghati Hospital". Though Savita was admitted in Ghati Hospital at about 4.00 to 4.30 p.m., she succumbed to her burn injuries.
4. On postmortem examination, Medical Officer opined that cause of death of Savita was "shock due to burns". He noted 98% burns on the body of Savita. By that time, father of the deceased was informed. On the same day he rushed to Ghati Hospital and came to know about death of Savita. Police Station, Aurangabad was informed about the death of Savita and accordingly Accidental Death (A.D.) was registered. In the A.D. Inquiry, inquest panchnama (Exh.8) was prepared. At the time of preparation of spot panchnama, suiucidal note (Exh.50) was seized from spot. However, till 24.04.1998 no action was taken in the matter.
5. At last on 24.04.1998 Raosaheb Aher (PW-1) lodged report (Exh.12) to Police Station, Khultabad. In the result, Crime No.70/1998 was registered under Sections 354, 306, 506 of the I.P.C. against the accused. Accused was arrested on the same day. P.S.I. Bhanudas Mante (PW-11) conducted investigation of this crime and filed charge-sheet against the accused in the Juvenile Court, Aurangabad. As the accused was held not to be a juvenile, this case was returned and submitted before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class at Aurangabad. Further investigation was conducted by A.P.I. Ashok Khatke (PW-12). He collected specimen handwriting of deceased Savita and referred the suicidal note to Handwriting Expert for his opinion. He submitted report under section 173 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before Judicial M
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
