Back
2021 Supreme(Bom) 1008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sadhana S Jadhav, N.R. Borkar, JJ.
Sachin Ramchandra Teke - Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 825 of 2012, 763 of 2012
Decided On : 06-04-2021
Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate, Jayant Bardeskar, Advocate, M.H. Mhatre, Advocate
The main legal point established is the requirement for the prosecution to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases, especially in cases involving serious offenses.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Conviction under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 34 and Dowry Prohibition Act sections 3 and 4 - The judgment discusses the evidence and concludes that the accused are acquitted of all charges due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves the conviction of the accused for various offenses under the Indian Penal Code and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The deceased, Megha, was found hanging in her matrimonial home, leading to the filing of charges against the accused. The prosecution presented evidence of ill-treatment and harassment of the deceased for dowry demands.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of disputes between the families or ill-treatment between the spouses. The medical evidence indicated death by hanging, and the defense witnesses provided insight into the deceased's mental stress and sensitivity. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the cause of death, evidence of ill-treatment, and the applicability of dowry-related charges.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the lack of evidence supporting the charges, the presence of defense witnesses, and the circumstances leading to the deceased's suicide. It highlighted the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal cases.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused of all charges, quashed the previous conviction and sentence, and ordered the refund of any paid fines.
JUDGMENT
Sadhana S. Jadhav, J. - The appellants herein seek to challenge the judgment and order dated 29th June 2012 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Sessions Case No.69 of 2010 and sentencing them to suffer RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo further RI for one month for the offence punishable under section 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The appellants are further sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo further RI for a period of one year, for committing the offence punishable u/s.302 r/w 34 of IPC. The appellants are further sentenced to suffer RI for a period of seven years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to undergo further RI for a period of six months for committing the offence punishable under section 304B r/w 34 of IPC. The appellants are further sentenced to suffer RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- each, in default to undergo further RI for a period of one year for committing the offence punishable u/s 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The appellants are further sentenced to suffer RI for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo further RI for a period of 15 days for committing the offence punishable u/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals are as follows :-
(i) The accused no.1 - Sachin was married to daughter of Netaji Bhanudas Dhavalshankh - P.W.2 on 28th July 2010. The couple was residing in a joint family at Malshiras. On 6th September 2010 Ramchandra Teke, father of accused no.1 approached Malshiras Police Station and lodged a report contending therein that at about 8.30 am Sachin and his brother-in-law Mahesh (brother of deceased Megha) had left the house as Mahesh was to return to Shingoli and at about 9.30 am his daughter-in-law Ishwari had gone to the bedroom of Sachin for the purpose of sweeping, however, his wife had not opened the door. Mansi had called upon her husband Sunil who was working in Zilla Parishad School. All the family members requested Megha to open the door however, there was no response and therefore, they had to break open the door and they saw Megha hanging to the rafter with a stole. The family members cut the stole lowered her and placed her on the bed. Thereafter, they informed Sachin about the same. On the basis of his statement A.D. No.20 of 2010 was registered at Malshiras Police Station at about 1.15 pm. A message was sent to the parents of Megha at village Shingoli. The parents had arrived at Malshiras. The A.D. report is at Exh.67. The scene of offence panchanama and the inquest panchanama were conducted in the A.D. inquiry. The panchas for the inquest and the spot are the family members and relatives of the deceased Megha who had accompanied her father P.W.2 - Netaji Dhavalshankh. The scene of offence panchanama is marked at Exh.41. P.W.2 - Netaji lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that Megha had complained to him that she has been subjected to ill-treatment and harassment for not fetching 1 tola golden ring for her husband, she was also subjected to starvation. That, on the occasion of Nagpanchami, Megha had visited her maternal house on 28th August 2010 and had reiterated her complaint against the accused persons. On 19th September 2010 when accused no.3 - Sunil, brother-in-law of Megha had come to fetch her, he was requested by P.W.2 not to harass Megha on account of demand for dowry. On 22nd August 2010, she had reiterated her complaints to her father. On 4th September 2010 on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan, brother of Megha i.e. Mahesh - P.W.4 had been to the matrimonial home of Megha and that she was abuse
