SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Bom) 936

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Vibha Kankanwadi, Abhay S.Waghwase, JJ.
Pankaj Ramesh Patil – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 400 of 2015
Decided On : 03-02-2023

Advocates appeared:
R.N.Dhorde, Advocate, Vikram R.Dhorde, Advocate, A.M.Phule, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for trustworthy and credible evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of reliable evidence and the need for concrete and timely actions in criminal proceedings.

Headnote:

498A, 302, 201 - Conviction Set Aside - Lack of Trustworthy Evidence

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the appeal of accused No.1 against the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court, where he was held guilty for offences under Ss. 498A, 302, and 201 of IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused and his in-laws ill-treated and assaulted the deceased for giving birth to a girl child and accused No.1 had an extra-marital affair, leading to the death of the deceased. The defense argued that the allegations had no basis and were a result of false implication due to annoyance.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence presented lacked credibility and trustworthiness. The court highlighted the belated FIR and supplementary statement, the absence of concrete steps taken by the informant to address the alleged ill-treatment, and the lack of reliable evidence regarding the alleged extra-marital affair. The court concluded that the prosecution's case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: The primary issue was the lack of credible evidence to establish the guilt of accused No.1 for the alleged offences. The court also addressed the discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the belated filing of the FIR and supplementary statement, and the absence of concrete steps taken by the informant to address the alleged ill-treatment and extra-marital affair.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of trustworthy evidence and the failure of the prosecution to establish the guilt of accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt. The court emphasized the belated nature of the FIR and supplementary statement, the absence of concrete steps taken by the informant, and the lack of reliable evidence regarding the alleged extra-marital affair.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of accused No.1, and acquitted him of the offences under Ss. 498A, 302, and 201 of IPC. The appellant was ordered to be set at liberty, and any fine amount deposited was to be refunded to the accused.

JUDGMENT

ABHAY S.WAGHWASE, J. - Present appeal is filed by the original accused No.1, against judgment and order of conviction passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada in Sessions Case No.56 of 2013, by which accused No.1 is held guilty for commission of offence under Ss. 498A, 302, 201 of IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5, 000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for offence under Sec. 302 of IPC and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1, 000.00, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month respectively for offence under Ss. 498A and 201 of IPC. PROSECUTION CASE IN TRIAL COURT

2. PW1 Nagin, father of deceased Manisha, set law into motion alleging that his daughter Manisha was married to accused No.1 in 2007. After her marriage, his daughter went to reside with accused No.1 husband and accused Nos.2 and 3 in-laws and they all resided jointly. Out of wedlock, his daughter delivered a girl child. Accusations are raised that on giving birth to a girl child, Manisha was subjected to ill treatment, beating and abuses by accused persons. Deceased used to inform whenever she visited informant's house about it. Even 2 to 3 months prior to the incident, deceased had informed about illicit relations of her husband with a girl. Fearing that deceased Manisha would disclose about affair of accused No.1 to others, on 15/5/2013 accused persons assaulted her and set her on fire and therefore, he lodged FIR Exhibit 72 on the basis of which Police registered Crime No.44 of 2013 for offence under Sec. 306, 498A read with 34 of IPC. Investigation was carried out. Accused persons were arrested. After gathering sufficient evidence against accused, they came to be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Ss. 302, 498A, 201, 504, 120B read with 34 of IPC and hence, they are put up for trial before learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Shahada, who after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, reached to above finding and accordingly, held accused No.1 guilty for offences under Ss. 498A, 302 and 201 of IPC and acquitted rest of the accused. Hence, instant appeal by accused No.1 husband on various grounds raised in appeal memo. SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT

3. Taking exception to the judgment of conviction, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has pointed out that there is no involvement of the appellant husband in the alleged incident. Story of prosecution about ill treatment, abuses, assault at the hands of appellant husband and in-laws has no basis or foundation. Learned Senior Advocate took us through the FIR, various panchanamas and entire substantive evidence, which came on record during trial. He pointed out that admittedly after marriage of accused No.1 and deceased in the year 2007, a girl child was begotten, however, there is no foundation in the entire evidence regarding accusation on accused persons being upset on deceased for delivering a girl child.

4. Learned Senior Advocate took us through the FIR as well as substantive evidence of informant father and pointed out that informant father admits about receiving information from none other than accused No.1 husband that said information was passed from Police Station in presence of Police. That deceased had suffered 100% burns and the said incident had taken place in bathroom, the door of which was opening from inside and it has come on record that deceased was found resting her back on the door and therefore, taking such situation into consideration, learned Senior Advocate pointed out that there is no reason to doubt any foul play. It is pointed out that admittedly deceased had suffered a cut injury and the same must have been suffered by deceased after she was in flames and might have come in contact with bathroom accessories and door. That there is no accusation of assault by any weapon and even there is no recovery of any weapon. He p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top