Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1064
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S. Jadhav, N.J. Jamadar, JJ.
Rajesh Jagan Karote & Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra at the instance of Wadala T.T. Police Station & Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 40 of 2015 & 1014 of 2014
Decided On : 15-12-2020
For the Appellant :Rajiv Patil, Sr. Counsel a/w. Gautam T. Kanchanpurkar, Rahul S. Kate a/w. Gautam T. Kanchanpurkar, Advocates.
For the Complainant :Abhijeet Joshi i/b. Varsha Sawant a/w Swapnil Jadhav, Advocates.
For the Respondent: P.P. Shinde, APP.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code to determine the guilt of the accused in a case of dowry death. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of medical evidence and witness testimony in establishing the cause of death and the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime.
Headnote:
Dowry Death - Indian Penal Code - Section 498A, Section 304-B - The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Bombay in Sessions Case No. 621 of 2011 along with 853 of 2011 dated 9/12/2014 against accused No. 6 for the offence punishable under section 304B of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against accused No. 6 for offence punishable under sections 498A of the Indian Penal Code is upheld and she is sentenced to the period already undergone. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against accused No. 1 for offences punishable under section 304B and 498 A of Indian Penal Code is upheld. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against accused Nos. 2, 3 and 7 for offence punishable under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code is upheld. However, they are sentenced to the period already undergone. The sentence of fine is maintained. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused Nos. 4 and 5 for offence punishable under section 498A of Indian Penal Code is set aside. The accused No. 4 and 5 are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Bail bonds stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased was married to accused No. 1 and died within 7 years of marriage in suspicious circumstances. The evidence of all the witnesses is consistent about harassment, ill-treatment, and physical assault meted out to the deceased at the hands of the accused. The deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. The medical evidence has convincingly proved that the cause of death was asphyxia due to compression around the neck. The victim had died an unnatural death within 7 years of marriage in her matrimonial home under suspicious circumstances.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. The medical evidence proved that the cause of death was asphyxia due to compression around the neck. The court upheld the conviction of accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court set aside the conviction of accused No. 6 for the offence punishable under section 304B of Indian Penal Code and upheld her conviction for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court acquitted accused Nos. 4 and 5 of the charges levelled against them.
Issues: The main issue was to determine whether the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry soon before her death. Another issue was to establish the cause of death and the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the provisions of Section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code to determine the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the medical evidence and the testimony of witnesses to establish the cause of death and the involvement of the accused in the alleged crime.
Final Decision: The court upheld the conviction of accused No. 1 for the offence punishable under section 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court set aside the conviction of accused No. 6 for the offence punishable under section 304B of Indian Penal Code and upheld her conviction for the offence punishable under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The court acquitted accused Nos. 4 and 5 of the charges levelled against them.
JUDGMENT :
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.
1. The appellants herein being aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 9/12/2014 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil & Sessions Court, Gr. Mumbai in Sessions Case No. 621 of 2011 along with Sessions Case No. 853 of 2011 have filed these appeals. All the appellants are convicted of the offence punishable under section 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years each and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, they shall undergo further R.I. for 2 months. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2015 are convicted of the offence punishable under section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for life, each and to pay fine in the sum of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default, they shall undergo further R.I. for two months.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows:
On 17/4/2011 Khushalrao Babuji Bhavare(P.W.1) the unfortunate father of deceased Renuka lodged a report at Wadala T.T. Police Station alleging therein as follows :
(i) That his daughter Renuka was married to Rajesh Karote on 12/12/2008. He had gifted jewellery and valuables to her at the time of marriage. The couple was residing in joint family, consisting of mother-in-law, the sisters of Rajesh and their spouses and her younger brother-in-law. She has given birth to a baby girl on 29/11/2009. That since January, 2010 her husband and his relatives were coercing her to fetch Rs. 5 Lakhs from her parents. They could not fulfill the demand and on that count, she was being harassed and ill-treated. That six months prior to 17/4/2011 his daughter had informed him telephonically that her husband and sister-in-law Savita had scorched her on her hands with an iron rod and further threatened her not to report the incident to the police. He therefore, visited Mumbai and had seen the burn injuries on both her hands. On 12/4/2011, they had poured kerosene on her person and attempted to set her on fire. On 16/4/2011 he had received a message from Yashodeep, husband of her sister-in-law that his daughter Renuka is admitted in hospital. That on account of his failure to fulfill the demand, she has been killed and her death is being posed as a suicidal death, but in fact, she has met a homicidal death. On 16/4/2011 he alongwith his wife, son and other relatives reached Mumbai. They were informed that their daughter Renuka is dead. He saw dead body in the morgue and noticed injuries on her chest, ligature marks on her neck and abrasion on her forehead. None of the accused were present in the hospital. Therefore, he reached their house. The house was locked. On the basis of the said report Crime No. 87 of 2011 is registered at Wadala T.T. Police Station against the accused for offence punishable under section 302, 498A, 406, 306, 506(ii) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR is at Exh. 21. Charge-sheet was filed on 3/10/2011.
3. It was noticed by the complainant that investigation was not proceeding in proper direction and therefore on 10th October, 2011 the complainant filed an application to the Home Ministry and other authorities seeking transfer of investigation in Crime No. 87/2011 to C.I.D. The said application was allowed. On 1/12/2011, the investigation was handed over to C.I.D. On 12/1/2012 application for further investigation was allowed under section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and supplementary charge-sheet was filed on 13/7/2012.
4. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The accused also examined one defence witness namely, Sushila Kuril, neighbour of the accused persons.
5. To prove the factum of dowry death, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of P.W. 1 father of the deceased, P.W. 2 mother of the deceased, P.W. 3 brother of the deceased, P.W. 4 maternal uncle of the deceased and P.W. 5 sister of the deceased. They
