Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, V.K. JADHAV, JJ.
Achyut S/o Bhaskar Kale – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 271, 325, 683 of 2014
Decided On : 15-09-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304B, 498A, 323, 504, 506 read with section 34 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 113-B and 114 (g) - Harassment and cruelty - Unlawful demand of dowry - Appeals against Acquittal and Conviction - Enhancement of Sentence - Whether circumstances relied upon by prosecution are proved by reliable and cogent evidence and whether all links in chain of circumstance are complete so as to rule out possibility of innocence of accused - Marriage of deceased was solemnized with accused - Accused made unlawful demand of gold ring and cash amount and they alleged to have abused deceased in a filthy language in presence of Deepak Londhe. Deepak tried to convince accused and further assured that after some days, he would make some arrangement to fulfill their demand. He also requested the accused to stop harassment and cruelty which was being caused to Sunita - First informant received phone call from cousin father-in-law of Sunita to inform that Sunita was no more - Deceased was lying dead in one room having injuries on her neck.
Finding of the Court:
There are no reasons why remaining accused Nos. 2 to 4 are not liable to be convicted on same set of facts and evidence. It is an error committed by learned trial Judge while recording finding against charge under section 304B of I.P.C. The appeal preferred by State against original accused Nos. 2 to 4 for their acquittal out of charge under section 304B of I.P.C. is found worthy and needs to be allowed. Late Sunita was cohabiting in matrimonial house along with husband and in-laws/ accused Nos. 2 to 4 when she met with unnatural death within two years of her marriage. She was subjected to harassment at their hands to fulfill unlawful demand of dowry. Accused Nos. 2 to 4 are equally liable to hold guilty for offence punishable under section 304B read with section 34 of I.P.C. They must be dealt with same way as like accused No. 1/ - Court find merit in appeal preferred by State against acquittal of original accused Nos. 2 to 4/in-laws whereby they were set at free from the charge under section 304B of I.P.C - nature of offence and in view of earlier part of discussion and considering facts of case entirety, court view to upheld the same. No need to enhance the sentence awarded against all the accused under section 498A r/w section 34 of I.P.C. There is no merit in appeal for enhancement of sentence - Appeal preferred by State regarding enhancement of sentence awarded against accused Nos. 1 to 4 under section 498A read with section 34 of I.P.C. All accused have been convicted for offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each with default clause.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.
1. These appeals are directed against the impugned Judgment and order rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Sessions Case No. 163 of 2012.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the impugned Judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, accused No. 1-Achyut Bhaskar Kale has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 271/2014. Whereas, the State of Maharashtra has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 325/2014 against all the accused for enhancement of sentence for the offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of IPC and also preferred another appeal vide Criminal Appeal No. 683/2014 against the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 4 at the hands of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar from the charge of section 304(B) read with section 34 of IPC. These appeals are heard together and being disposed of by common Judgment and order.
3. Prosecution case in narrow compass is as under:-
(b) According to the prosecution case, Sunita was subjected to mental and physical cruelty at the hands of her husband and in-laws (accused Nos. 1 to 4). Accused-Satyashila happened to be married sister-in-law of deceased Sunita but she was residing with co-accused as she is widow. In the year 2010, at the time of Gudhi Padva, brother of the deceased, Deepak Madhukar Londhe had been to the matrimonial house of Sunita. The accused made unlawful demand of gold ring and cash amount and they alleged to have abused Sunita in a filthy language in presence of Deepak Londhe. Deepak tried to convince the accused and further assured that after some days, he would make some arrangement to fulfill their demand. He also requested the accused to stop harassment and cruelty which was being caused to Sunita.
(c) Accused-Achyut shifted to Pune, Kalewadi for some job with wife Sunita and her sister-in-law Satyashila. Accused-Achyut and Satyashila alleged to have poured kerosene on her person and tried to set her ablaze, but Sunita escaped from the hands of the accused. Sunita and her husband again came back to Dhanegaon. The accused continued their harassment and cruelty to Sunita to meet their unlawful demand. Prior to eight days of the incident, Muktabai Madhukar Londhe (mother of deceased) and Rupesh Londhe (another brother of deceased) had been to Sunita’s matrimonial house at Dhanegaon. Accused Shakuntala, Bhaskar and Satyashila alleged to have threatened to mother of the deceased that they would perform another marriage of Achyut with another girl, even if Sunita met with death, they would get handsome amount of dowry. Muktabai apprehended danger to the life of her daughter Sunita and asked Sunita to accompany her, but Sunita refused to accompany her by stating that she is pregnant and after delivery, the things would be alright.
(d) On 03.03.2012 at about 7.30 p.m. Deepak Londhe, first informant received phone call from cousin father-in-law of Sunita to inform that Sunita was no more. The first informant along with his parents rushed to the house of the accused. They noticed that Sunita was lying dead in one room having injuries on her neck. The accused were not present in the house.
(e) On 03.03.2012, Ashok Gokul Chavan, Police Patil of village Dhanegaon, Tal. Jamkhed, Dist. Ahmednagar after visiting the spot, rushed to the Police Station, Jamkhed and lodged report about death of Sunita by consuming poison.
(f) On the basis of report submitted by Police Patil, A.D. No. 11/2012 came to be registered with Jamkhed Police Station. Th
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
