Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
V.K. JADHAV, SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, JJ.
Madhav Dhondiba Wadwale & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary Home Department - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 392 of 2014 and Criminal Appeal No. 294 of 2014
Decided On : 06-01-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498-A, 307 r.w. 34 and 316 r/w 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Sections 313, 357(1) and 428 - Dowry demand - Cruelty - Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide - Attempt to murder - Appeal against conviction - When P.W.2 (victim) was cleaning paddy rice grains in kitchen room, at that time appellant accused No.1 entered in room and by closing door of kitchen room from inside, had given two kicks on abdomen of P.W.2 (victim) - Parents of appellant accused No.1 i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are appellants in criminal appeal also entered in said kitchen room - Appellant accused No.2 had given a nylon rope to appellant accused No.1 and accused wrapped said nylon rope around neck of P.W.2 (victim) and started twisting it - Appellant accused No.2 caught hold of hands of P.W.2 (victim) and appellant accused No.3 caught hold of her legs - Appellants accused persons have attempted to strangulate P.W.2 (victim). P.W.2 (victim) had made efforts to loose rope wrapped around her neck. She was succeeded in removing rope from her neck. Thereafter, the appellants accused had taken her in another room - Appellant accused No.1 given shock on her both buttocks by soldering machine - Though P.W.2 (victim) had raised shouts, but at that time the volume of TV was deliberately increased by accused persons. Further appellant had given electric shock on the thigh of P.W.2 (victim) and she became unconscious - Whether it is case of strangulation by ligature or manual strangulation by throttling.
Finding of the Court:
Court not impressed by submissions made on behalf of appellants accused to effect that evidence of P.W.2 (victim) suffers from contradictions, omissions and improvements. There are some minor contradictions and omissions, however, those are not material. Furthermore, P.W.1, father of P.W.2 (victim) and P.W.3, uncle of P.W.2 (victim) have duly corroborated her evidence about ill-treatment being extended to her as disclosed to them by P.W.2 (victim) - Trial court has observed that P.W.2 (victim) was newly married girl and within one year of her marriage, she was assaulted in a very brutal manner. P.W.2 (victim) cannot stand and walk herself. She was actually brought in the court room by lifting her. The fingers of her hands and legs are flexed. However, appellant accused No.1 was 23 years of age at the time of incident. Furthermore, appellant-accused are at present more than 70 years of age. Thus, on this backdrop reducing the sentence appropriately passed against them would meet the ends of justice - Impugned judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case convicting thereby appellant-original accused No.1, appellant original accused No.2 and appellant original accused No.3, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A r.w. 34, 307 r.w. 34 and 316 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. stands confirmed - Sentence to suffer imprisonment for life each under Section 307 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. and sentence to suffer R.I. for 10 years each under Section 316 r.w. 34 of I.P.C. the same is reduced.
Result: Criminal appeal partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
V.K. Jadhav, J.
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandhar dated 23.5.2014 in Sessions Case No.23 of 2004, the appellant - original-accused No.1 Madhav Dhondiba Wadwale preferred criminal appeal No.392 of 2014 and appellants-accused No.2 and 3 i.e. Dhondiba Devrao Wadwale and Chandrakalabai Dhondiba Wadwale, respectively, preferred criminal appeal No.294 of 2014.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are as follows:-
(a) P.W.2 Savita (victim) is the wife of appellant-accused No.1 Madhav whereas the appellant accused Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Dhondiba and Chandrakalabai, respectively, are the parents of appellant accused No.1 Madhav. The marriage of P.W.2 Savita (victim) was performed with appellant-accused No.1 Madhav on 26.3.2003. At the time of marriage, though dowry amount of Rs.1,21,000/- was fixed, however, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid in cash alongwith motor cycle and ornaments of two and half Tola gold were also given and balance amount of dowry for Rs.21,000/- remained unpaid. After the marriage, P.W.2 Savita (victim) had gone to her matrimonial house at Kapsi (Bk), Tq. Loha, District Nanded. She was treated well for a period of three months after the marriage. Thereafter, she was subjected to ill-treatment on account of remaining unpaid dowry amount for Rs.21,000/-. P.W.2 Savita (victim) was also subjected to insulting treatment for the reason that she is having black complexion. P.W.2 Savita (victim) has thereafter became pregnant. However, there are various instances quoted by P.W.2 Savita (victim) which indicate that she was also subjected to ill-treatment for aborting foetus. There was an attempt to kill her in her matrimonial home but she has fortunately saved herself.
(b) On 20.01.2004 at noon when P.W.2 Savita (victim) was cleaning the paddy rice grains in kitchen room, at that time appellant accused No.1 Madhav entered in the room and by closing the door of kitchen room from inside, had given two kicks on the abdomen of P.W.2 Savita (victim). The parents of appellant accused No.1 Madhav i.e. accused Nos. 2 and 3, who are appellants in criminal appeal No. 294 of 2014 also entered in the said kitchen room. The appellant accused No.2 Dhondiba had given a nylon rope to appellant accused No.1 Madhav and accused Madhav wrapped the said nylon rope around the neck of P.W.2 Savita (victim) and started twisting it. The appellant accused No.2 Dhondiba caught hold of the hands of P.W.2 Savita (victim) and appellant accused No.3 Chandrakalabai caught hold of her legs. The appellants accused persons have attempted to strangulate P.W.2 Savita (victim). P.W.2 Savita (victim) had made efforts to loose the rope wrapped around her neck. She was succeeded in removing the rope from her neck. Thereafter, the appellants accused had taken her in another room. The appellant accused No.1 Madhav given shock on her both the buttocks by soldering machine. Though P.W.2 Savita (victim) had raised shouts, but at that time the volume of TV was deliberately increased by the accused persons. Further the appellant Madhav had given electric shock on the thigh of P.W.2 Savita (victim) and she became unconscious.
(c) P.W.2 Savita (victim) was taken to Apex hospital at Nanded on 20.1.2004 at 4.25 p.m. The concerned treating doctor has given M.L.C. intimation to Vajirabad police station, Nanded. P.W.2 Savita (victim) was unconscious when she was admitted in the said hospital. Her condition was critical. There was bleeding from her nose and ears. Blood was clotted in her eyes. Froth was coming from her mouth. The treating doctor has noted one lenier contused wound on her throat which was extending from right to left ear. The treating doctor has noted another injury on her both hips and the third injury was contused lacerted wound on left thigh. In the cross examination, the treating doctor has admitted that there was swelling on lungs. P.W.2 Savita (vic
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
