APEAL.586.2001-J.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.586 OF 2001

The State of Maharashtra

… Appellant

Vs.

1) Bhausaheb Barku Datir

2) Barku Chenda Datir (DECEASED)

… Respondents

Mr.S.S. Hulke, APP, for the Appellant – State

Mr.Anilkumar Patil for Respondent No.1

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE &

SURENDRA P. TAVADE, JJ.

DATED: DECEMBER 4, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER S.S. SHINDE, J.):

1.

This is an Appeal arising out of the impugned judgment and

order of acquittal dated 28^th March, 2001 passed by the learned

Assistant Sessions Judge, Malegaon in Sessions Case No.9 of

1995.

2.

The Respondents herein i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2, were

tried for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 304(B) and

306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court

after a full fledged trial, acquitted the respondents. Hence, this

Appeal by the State.

Page 1 of 7

Sherla V.

VISHWANATH

SATYANARAYANA

SHERLA

Digitally signed by

VISHWANATH

SATYANARAYANA

SHERLA

Date: 2021.12.09

14:46:25 +0530

APEAL.586.2001-J.doc

3.

Respondent No.2 – Barku Chenda Datir died during the

pendency of the present appeal on 23^rd September, 2021 and

hence, the Appeal has abated against Respondent No.2.

4.

It was the case of the prosecution before the trial Court that

the respondents subjected Shobhabai (the deceased) to cruelty by

making unlawful demand and death of Shobhabai was caused

otherwise than under normal circumstances within 7 years from

the date of her marriage. It is alleged that Shobhabai got married

with accused No.1 three years prior to her death. Her matrimonial

house was at Shitane and the parental house at Bhagur, District

Nashik. Shobhabai died on 25^th July, 1993. The Police Patil of

the village reported accidental death of the deceased Shobhabai

to the police at Malegaon and accordingly an Accidental Death

Report No.21 of 1993 was registered. Thereafter, PW1 Genu

Lande, the mother of the deceased Shobhabai, filed the complaint.

It was alleged in the said complaint that PW1 spent Rs.60,000/- in

marriage and paid Rs.10,000/- as dowry to the respondents.

Initially after marriage, for one year, the respondents properly

treated Shobhabai. However, thereafter, they started giving cruel

treatment to her for unlawful demands of one golden ring, wrist

Page 2 of 7

APEAL.586.2001-J.doc

watch and Rs.10,000/-. It is alleged that Shobhabai used to visit

her parents house and on each occasion, narrated the ill-treatment

meted out to her by the respondents.

On the basis of the said complaint given by Respondent

No.1, the offence was registered being C.R. No.259 of 1993 with

Malegaon police station.

5.

The prosecution, in all, examined five witnesses. The star

witness of the prosecution case is PW1. Upon a careful perusal of

the deposition of PW1, she has stated about unlawful demand of

Rs.10,000/-, wrist watch and a golden ring. She also stated that

whenever Shobhabai visited her house, she stated about the

unlawful demand by the respondents and threats given by

Respondent No.1 that in case the said demand is not fulfilled, he

will kill her.

It appears from the evidence of PW1 that she lodged the

complaint on second day of cremation. The prosecution has not

satisfactorily explained any delay in lodging the First Information

Report. It is stated by PW1 that she went to the village of the

accused for cremation and on that date, after cremation was over,

Page 3 of 7

APEAL.586.2001-J.doc

she stayed in the school premises. Though the police approached

her, she stated that she was not in a state of mind to lodge

complaint and on second day, the complaint was lodged. It

appears that her evidence suffers from serious omission insofar as

the demand of Rs.10,000/- is concerned. The same has not been

confirmed by the Investigating Officer in his evidence. It further

appears that durin