##PAGE1##

2026 INSC 1187 NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1849 OF 2013 RAMKISHAN DIGAMBAR JADHAV ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA ….RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 962 OF 2014

J U D G M E N T

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.

2. These connected criminal appeals are filed by the appellants assailing the common judgment dated 3rd July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad¹ in Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1998 and 395 of 1998.

3. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 311 of 1998 preferred Signature Not Verified D SO ig N ita IA lly B s H ig A n S e I d N by Date: 2026.11.02

1 R 7 e : a 4 s 3 o :0 n 9 : IST 1 Hereinafter, referred to as “the High Court”.

by the appellants, Ramkishan Digambar Jadhav (accused No. 1)2, Digambar Narba Jadhav (accused No. 2)3, and Venkat (accused No. 5)4, thereby affirming their conviction and sentence for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304- B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, For short, “IPC”..

4. At the same time, the High Court partly allowed Criminal Appeal No. 395 of 1998 filed by the State of Maharashtra6 by setting aside the partial acquittal of the appellant-Ramkishan by the trial Court, and convicted him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his wife Vimalbai, and sentenced him to imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.5,000/- with a default stipulation, while maintaining the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 6 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 5. Criminal Appeal No. 1849 of 2013 has been preferred by the appellant-Ramkishan, whereas Criminal Appeal No.962 of 2014 has been preferred by co-convicts Digambar and Venkat before this

2 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-Ramkishan”.

3 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-Digambar”.

4 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-Venkat”.

6 Hereinafter, referred to as “respondent-State”.

Court. Ramkishan and Venkat are the sons of Digambar.

6. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that the appellant-Digambar in Criminal Appeal No. 962 of 2014 passed away during the pendency of the appeal and hence the appeal qua him stands abated.

BRIEF FACTS

7. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of these appeals are noted hereinbelow.

8. The marriage of the appellant-Ramkishan with Smt. Vimalbai7 was solemnised on 12th May, 1995. The prosecution alleges that, shortly after marriage, Smt. Vimalbai was subjected to continuous harassment, maltreatment, and physical as well as mental torture at the matrimonial home in connection with unlawful demands for dowry, specifically comprising a television set, a tape deck, a plot of land in the MIDC area, and cash amounting to Rs. 50,000/-, so that the husband, i.e. the appellant- Ramkishan could get some employment. However, within barely nine months of the marriage, on 1st

7 Hereinafter, also referred to as “deceased-Vimalbai”.

February, 1996, Smt. Vimalbai met an unnatural and homicidal death at the matrimonial home.

9. The prosecution also alleges that whenever the deceased-Vimalbai visited her parental home, she used to complain to her brother Narayan, the first informant (PW-2)8, that the accused persons were coercing her with unlawful demands for cash and other valuables, and that she was being subjected to unrelenting harassment and humiliation on this account.

10. The complainant-Narayan expressed his inability to meet these demands and sent his sister back to the matrimonial home after consoling her. On 12th January, 1996, Smt. Vimalbai had been brought to the parental home on the festival of Sankrant. Even at that time, she complained of maltreatment at the matrimonial home. She also expressed that she was being beaten and was being starved. On one occasion, she was strung with a rope and was hung in the well with a threat that if the demands were not met, she would be