Chetan S/o Vasant Chowdhary vs State of Maharashtra

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Bom) 76

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH
G.A. SANAP, J.
Chetan S/o Vasant Chowdhary – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Application Nos. 649, 651 of 2019
Decided On : 24-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P.A. Abhyankar.
For the Respondents: H.D. Dubey, Shweta D. Wankhede.

Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B, 306, 498-A, 34, 107 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 228, 227, 482 – Offence Punishable – Quashing First Information Report – Offence Of Dowry Death – Abetment of a thing – Abetment of suicide – Framing of charge – Saving of inherent powers of High Court – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention – Whether involvement of accused has been made out or not – Held, Court has observed that tendency of implicating relatives of husband in matrimonial disputes has increased without analysing long term ramifications of a trial on complainant as well as accused – It is observed that before proceeding against relatives, Court must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case to proceed against them – Relatives of husband cannot be proceeded with in absence of a prima-facie case made out against them on basis of material – Court in these decisions observed that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding that person in doing of a thing – It is held that more active role which can be described as instigating or aiding doing of a thing is required before a person can be said to have abetted commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC – In these cases, evidence on record on appreciation was found not sufficient to meet these requirements – In my view, in case on hand, question of appreciation and threadbare analysis of evidence would arise at stage of decision of case on merits – Ordered Accordingly.

JUDGMENT :

G.A. SANAP, J.

1. Applicant in Criminal Application No. 649 of 2019 is the accused No. 4 and applicant in Criminal Application No. 651 of 2019 is the accused No. 6 in Sessions Trial No. 512 of 2016. They applied for discharge in Sessions Trial No. 512 of 2016 arising out of Crime bearing No. 103/2016 for the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 306, 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”). In view of this, both these applications are being disposed of by the common judgment. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur vide order dated 12th April, 2019 rejected the applications made by the applicants for their discharge.

2. The facts relevant for decision of the applications can be summarized as follows:

Deceased Ekta and accused No. 5 Alop were married on 29th January, 2015. Applicants/accused Nos. 4 and 6 are the brothers of accused No. 5 Alop. Accused No. 1, in the case, is the mother of the applicants. Accused No. 2 is the father of the applicants. Accused No. 3 is the wife of the accused No. 6.

3. The crime came to be registered on the report lodged by brother of the deceased on 24th February, 2016. Deceased committed suicide on 24th February, 2016. It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage, for some time, the deceased stayed with the accused persons at their house at Nagpur. Accused No. 5 Alop and accused No. 6 Anup are serving in Army. Deceased Ekta and accused No. 5 Alop went to Jammu and Kashmir at the place of posting of Alop. They stayed there till December, 2015. It is stated that after 2-3 months of the marriage, the accused started illtreating the deceased. They were alleging that the deceased was not able to do the household work. The deceased was also forced to do the extra household work. The accused demanded money of the share of the deceased from the informant and his mother. The deceased did not agree for the same. She did not pay any heed to their demand. On that count, the accused tortured and ill-treated the deceased.

4. In January, 2016, accused No. 5 Alop was transferred from Jammu and Kashmir to Allahabad. The deceased insisted to join him at the place of his posting. The family members did not allow the deceased to accompany him. It is stated that the accused No. 6 and the family members had gone to the residence of the accused No. 5 at the place of his posting in Jammu and Kashmir. They all made a demand of money from the deceased. The accused No. 6 would always insist the deceased to observe the family tradition of taking Ghunghat. On that count also, the deceased was ill-treated. The informant stated in his report that the deceased narrated about this ill-treatment and torture meted out to her, to him and other family members. At once, they had decided to lodge the report with the police, however, the deceased insisted not to lodge the report, because at the time the accused No. 2 had sustained the Paralytic Stroke. It is stated that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and torture on account of failure to meet the demand of money. She was also ill-treated and tortured on other counts. When the ill-treatment became unbearable, the deceased committed suicide by hanging from the ceiling fan.

5. On the basis of the report, the Crime bearing No. 103/2016 was registered against the accused persons. The investigation conducted in the crime revealed the involvement of the accused No. 1 to 6 in the commission of crime. Therefore, the charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused.

6. In the discharge applications, it is the case of the applicants that no specific role has been attributed to them. The allegations made against them are vague and general in nature. Their names have not been specifically mentioned by all the witnesses. No specific role has been attributed to them by the witnesses. The material compiled in the charge-sheet is not sufficient to form a prima facie opinion about their involvement in the commission of crime. Th