Back
2020 Supreme(Bom) 1432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT AURANGABAD
PRASANNA B. VARALE, V.G. BISHT, JJ.
State Of Maharashtra – Appellant
Versus
Sadhana Suresh Jadhav and others – Respondent
Cri. Appeal No. 761 of 2002
Decided on : 21-02-2020
Advocate Appeared
For the Appellant : H. J. Dedhia, APP
For the Respondents: Shekhr Ingawale
The judgment emphasizes the importance of corroborating evidence and the need for dying declarations to inspire full confidence in their correctness.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Cruelty and abetting suicide - Sections 302, 498A read with 34 of the IPC
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the prosecution of the accused for harassing, abusing, and ultimately setting the deceased on fire. The deceased had made statements indicating the accused's involvement in the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and upheld the judgment of acquittal, stating that the finding was based on proper appreciation of evidence.
Issues: The key issue was whether the prosecution could prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the case of cruelty and abetting suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the need for dying declarations to inspire full confidence in their correctness. It also highlighted the requirement for a dying declaration to be voluntary and not a result of any extraneous influence.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
V.G. BISHT, J.
1. This Appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 12th March, 2002 passed in Sessions Case No. 989 of 1996 by 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan, for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ( for short “IPC”).
2. It is the case of prosecution that informant’s daughter viz., Shaila (since deceased) was married to accused Sunil Dunda Jadhav (A3) in the month of April 1990. She was treated well for about six months after the marriage. However, thereafter, accused Smt. Anusaya Dunda Jadhav mother-in-law (A2), Sadhana Suresh Jadhav sister-in-law (A1), Subhash Dunda Jadhav and A3 started harassing, abusing and beating her on account of domestic affairs. Even 2½ years prior to the lodging of report, all the accused had tried to set deceased on fire by pouring kerosene on her person and since then the deceased had started residing with her parents.
3. According to prosecution, however, on 16th September 1993 with the interventions of some advocates and others, accused assured that hereinafter they would treat the deceased properly and therefore, the deceased was sent to her conjugal home. She was treated well for about 1 to 1½ month and thereafter, again A1 and A2 started abusing and beating the deceased and asking her to bring monies from her father for household expenses. The informant father had paid Rs.3000/to the deceased.
4. The prosecution alleges that since last month, prior to the main incident, the accused had again started harassing, abusing and beating the deceased and used to ask her to bring monies from her parents. Even the informant father was told by the deceased about illicit relations between A1 and A3.
5. On 7th February 1994 one Mohan Mali informed the informant about the burning of deceased and therefore, informant and his wife rushed to the hospital. They came to know from the father of A3 that in the night of 6th February 1994 the deceased and A1 sustained burn injuries.
6. The informant after seeing the deceased in the hospital lodged the report against the accused on the ground of cruelty and abetting the deceased to commit suicide. On 7th February 1994, on the basis of report of informant, Manpada Police Station registered Crime No.21 of 1994 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 of the IPC.
7. However, it appears from the record that on the very next day i.e. on 8th February 1994, a supplementary statement of informant father again came to be recorded wherein he stated that the deceased told him that on 6th February 1994, in the night hours, A3 came to the house and when she told that she had not taken any food from last two days and that there is nothing in the house and requested him to bring something, A3 told her that he had no monies and that she should bring monies from her father. Meantime, A1 and A2 also arrived on the scene. She was caught hold by A3 and A2 poured kerosene on her person while A1 set her on fire by means of a matchstick.
8. It appears from the record that PW8 Motiram Shripat Malche, Investigating Officer, visited the place of occurrence and drew Spot Panchnama. He also seized various articles from the spot and recorded statements of witnesses. He also came to know about the dying declaration recorded by Special Executive Magistrate and accordingly collected the same.
9. It then appears from the record that PW9 Suresh Deoram Sonawane, Investigating Officer, also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses and after completion of investigation forwarded the charge sheet against the accused.
10. To substantiate the charge against the respondents accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The respondents accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) about the incriminating evidence and circumstances and they denied all of them as
