2024:BHC-AUG:7436 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2003

1. Santosh s/o Ramrao Hake Age : 25 yrs, Occ : Agril., 2. Ramrao s/o Marotrao Hake Age : 60 years, Occ : Agril., 3. Prabhakar s/o Ramrao Hake Age : 29 yrs, Occ : Agril., 4. Anusayabai w/o Ramrao Hake Age : 60 years, occ : Agril. &

Household work.

All R/o Pangara Hake, Taluka Aunde, Districe Hingoli. … Appellants [Orig. Accused Nos.

Santosh s/o Ramrao Hake

1 to 3 & 5]

Versus State of Maharashtra … Respondent ..…

Mr. Rajendra Deshmukh, Senior Advocate i/by Mr. B. S. Kudale, Advocate for the Appellants.

Mrs. Ashlesha S. Deshmukh, APP for Respondent State.

…..

CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

Reserved on : 02.04.2024 Pronounced on : 08.04.2024 JUDGMENT :

1. The judgment and order of conviction dated 16.01.2003 passed by learned 2^nd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No. 83 of 2001, convicting appellants for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC], is hereby assailed by convict appellants by filing instant appeal.

IN BRIEF, PROSECUTION CASE IN TRIAL COURT IS AS UNDER

2. Deceased Rukhminibai was married to accused Santosh. For initial period of 3 to 4 months, everything was smooth, but thereafter husband and in-laws put up demand of cot, TV and money for bore well and subjected her to both, mental and physical cruelty. It is specific case of prosecution that on account of non-fulfillment of demand, accused refused to allow Rukhminibai to cohabit. When finally brother and maternal uncle of deceased were informed by accused that they will not allow Rukhminibai to come and reside, deceased learnt about it and therefore she ended her life by consuming poison.

3. Hence, brother PW1 Yeshwantrao set law into motion by filing FIR which was investigated by PW8 API Warade and on gathering evidence, husband and in-laws were chargesheeted and tried before learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, who, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, held case of prosecution as well as charge to be proved and convicted and sentenced accused appellants as spelt out in the operative part of the judgment.

SUBMISSIONS On behalf of the appellants :

4. Criticizing the judgment, learned senior counsel would point out that here, prosecution has miserably failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. According to him, there are general and omnibus allegations about ill-treatment without specifying when said ill-treatment was meted out to deceased and in what form, and therefore, according to him, there are general, omnibus and bald allegations as regards ill-treatment is concerned.

5. He further pointed out that though witnesses are near and dear ones, they are not consistent both, about period since when ill- treatment began as well as about nature of ill-treatment. Therefore, when none of the prosecution witnesses are lending support to each other, it is his submission that, learned trial court ought not to have held charge under Section 498-A IPC as proved, more particularly when essential ingredients for attracting said charge were patently missing.

6. It is next submission that not only witnesses are inconsistent and failing to lend support to each other, but even their testimonies are full of material omissions, contradictions and improvements. There is desperate attempt to implicate appellants out of sheer annoyance of losing Rukhminibai. He further pointed out that apparently and admittedly case of prosecution is that deceased consumed poison while she was at her brother’s place. According to him, said consumption is on 19^th November 2000 but there is no evidence to show that on said date or even immediately prior to it, there was any contact between accused and deceased, so as to instigate alleged consumption. According to him, deceased consumed poison while at her brother’s place and accused, who were far away at their village, and as such had no nexus with the alleged incident