APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1098 OF 2002
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )…APPELLANT
V/s.
DATTATRAYA TUKARAM KADAM )…RESPONDENT
Mr.Prashant Jadhav, APP for the Appellant – State.
Mr.Sandeep Waghmare, Advocate for the Respondent.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 20th JANUARY 2018
JUDGMENT :
1 By this appeal, the appellant/State is challenging the
judgment and order dated 30th March 2002 passed by the learned
1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case
No.127 of 2000, thereby convicting the respondent/accused of
offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian
Penal Code.
avk 1/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
2 Facts in nutshell leading to the prosecution of the
respondent/accused are thus :
(a) PW2 Saraswati Aangre is the First Informant in the instant
case. She is a resident of Pune. Her daughter Sujata
married respondent/accused on 28th April 1999. Thereafter,
she started cohabiting with the respondent/accused at Wai
in Satara district. They were residing in the tenanted
premises owned by PW4 Jaywant Mandhare. The
respondent/accused was serving in the Life Insurance
Company.
(b) It is case of the prosecution that the respondent/accused
was suspecting the character of Sujata and torturing her
mentally by stating that she has some affair at Pune and she
looks at strangers. According to prosecution case, on two
occasions, Sujata was aborted against her wish. Thus,
according to the prosecution case, the respondent/accused
used to subject his wife Sujata to cruelty by suspecting her
character as well as by forcing her to abort on two
avk 2/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
occasions. Fed up with constant ill-treatment, on 20 th March
2000, in the morning hours, Sujata committed suicide by
jumping in the canal. Her dead body was then fished out of
the canal. Report (Exhibit 30) of the accidental death of
Sujata was lodged by the respondent/accused on 20 th March
2000 itself.
(c) After receipt of intimation of death of Sujata, her parental
relatives went to Wai. Her mother PW2 Saraswati Aangre
lodged First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit 24) against
the respondent/accused on 20th March 2000 itself. The
Investigating Officer then recorded statement of witnesses.
Dead body of Sujata was sent for autopsy and on completion
of routine investigation, charge-sheet for offences
punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal
Code came to be filed against the respondent/accused.
(d) After framing charge, in order to bring home guilt to the
respondent/accused, the prosecution has examined in all
avk 3/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
seven witnesses. In order to prove abetment by the
respondent/ accused to deceased Sujata by subjecting her to
cruelty within one year of her marriage, the prosecution has
placed reliance on evidence of PW1 Sanjay Aangre – brother,
PW2 Saraswati Aangre – mother and PW3 Aatmaram
Aangre – cousin uncle and PW5 Tukaram Hovale – maternal
uncle of deceased Sujata. The prosecution has also
examined landlord cum neighbour of the respondent/
accused and deceased Sujata namely, PW4 Jaywant
Mandhare. Police Head Constable Jyotiram Bhosale is
examined as PW6 to prove suicidal death, whereas the
Investigating Officer Dipak Savant, Assistant Police
Inspector, is examined as PW7.
(e) After hearing the parties, the learned trial court concluded
that the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Sujata
was subjected to cruelty by the respondent/accused or he
had abetted commission of suicide by Sujata by subjecting
her to cruelty. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and
avk 4/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
order, the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge was
pleased to acquit the respondent/accused.
6 I have heard the learned APP appearing for the
appellant/State. He vehemently argued that by clear and cogent
evidence of brother, mother and cousin uncle of deceased Sujata,
the prosecution has established cruel treatment by the
respondent/accused to deceased Sujata, who died within one year
from her marriage with the respondent/accused, and therefore,
offences alleged against the respondent/accused are proved. Per
contra, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent/
accused justified the impugned judgment and order.
7 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and
also perused the record and proceedings including deposition of
witnesses and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.
8 Now let us examine whether Sujata Dattatraya Kadam
died homicidal death on 20th March 2000. Sujata was residing
avk 5/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
with her husband i.e. the respondent/accused at the house of PW4
Jaywant Mandhare. The house was comprising of six rooms and
the respondent/accused along with deceased Sujata was residing
in one of these six rooms. Evidence of PW4 Jaywant Mandhare
shows that on 20th March 2000, upon getting information in
respect of death of Sujata, he had been to the bank of canal and
found dead body of Sujata kept there.
9 Evidence of PW6 Jyotiram Bhosale, Police Head
Constable, shows that on 20th March 2000, the respondent/
accused came to the police station and lodged report Exhibit 30.
The report Exhibit 30 lodged by the respondent/accused is to the
effect that in the morning hours, he found Sujata missing and
when he searched for her in the vicinity, he saw her dead body in
the water of the canal. The respondent/accused reported to police
that Sujata committed suicide and that is how A.D.Case No.16 of
2000 came to be registered.
avk 6/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
10 The report at Exhibit 30 came to be lodged by the
respondent/accused when there was no offence registered at the
police station in respect of death of Sujata. It is neither a
confession nor a statement recorded during the course of
investigation. The report at Exhibit 30, as such, has relevance
under Section 21 of the Evidence Act, as an admission.
11 The certificate regarding cause of death Exhibit 13 and
postmortem report at Exhibit 14 shows that Sujata died because of
asphyxia caused due to drowning. There was no reason for her to
go to the canal in the morning hours and evidence on record does
not suggest that she had accidental fall in the canal. In this view
of the matter, I find no infirmity with the finding of the learned
trial court that Sujata died suicidal death on 20th March 2000.
12 Now let us examine whether evidence of prosecution
establishes cruelty as defined by explanation to Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code and whether the prosecution can establish
avk 7/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
that by subjecting a married woman to cruelty, the respondent/
accused had abetted her to commit suicide.
13 For establishing cruelty, the prosecution had relied on
evidence of brother, mother and uncles of deceased Sujata. They
are PW1 Sanjay Aangre – brother, PW2 Sarawati Aangre – mother,
PW3 Aatmaram Aangre – cousin uncle and PW5 Tukaram Hovale
– maternal uncle. At this stage, it needs to be kept in mind that in
the offences of the present nature, allegations are very easily
made and once made, it is very difficult to dislodge them. Mostly
in such cases, prosecution witnesses are near and dear ones of the
deceased. Therefore, if the evidence fails to inspire confidence,
then it is advisable to look for corroboration from some
independent source. Evidence of neighbour in such matters
assumes great importance because they are eye witnesses to the
matrimonial life of the couple.
14 In the case in hand, PW1 Sanjay Aangre, PW2
Saraswati Aangre, PW3 Aatmaram Aangre and PW5 Tukaram
avk 8/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
Hovale have deposed in unison that after marriage, the
respondent/accused used to harass Sujata by suspecting her
character. He used to say that Sujata was having some affair with
somebody and was giving mental torture to her. PW5 Tukaram
Hovale claimed that four months prior to the incident of suicidal
death of Sujata, she had disclosed to him that the respondent/
accused was ill-treating her by suspecting her character, but this
witness has accepted the fact that he did not even persuade the
respondent/accused in the matter. In the like manner, PW1
Sanjay Aangre has also admitted in cross-examination that he had
not disclosed to his mother PW2 Saraswati Aangre about
narrations of Sujata regarding suspicion by her husband on her
character. That apart, evidence of all these witnesses is too vague
on this aspect. They have not spoken that deceased Sujata had
declared them name of a specific person with whom, according to
the respondent/accused, she was having some affair. What type of
ill-treatment the respondent/accused used to give her on this
pretext, is also not disclosed by any of these witnesses. Thus,
allegations are general in nature regarding suspicion and the
avk 9/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc
manner in which she used to be ill-treated by the respondent/
accused because of this reason, is also not clarified by any of the
witnesses.
15 The next allegation in order to establish cruelty is two
forced abortions of deceased Sujata by the respondent/accused.
On this aspect, cross-examination of PW2 Saraswati Aangre –
mother, becomes relevant. In paragraph 7 of her cross-
examination, PW2 Saraswati Aangre has stated thus :
“7 In July, 1999 Sujata was taken to the
hospital of Dr.Saigaonkar at Wai for her per vagina
bleeding. At that time the dilatation and evacuation
was done by Dr.Saigaonkar. Then in October, 1999
Sujata was again pregnant. At that time also Sujata
was taken to Dr.Purohit for P.V.bleeding. Dr.Purohit
is our family doctor, therefore Sujata had suggested
to go to Dr.Purohit. There again evacuation was
done by Dr.Purohit. Thereafter, Sujata never
remained pregnant till her death. It is not true that
Dr.Purohit had told that Sujata will not retain, if
conceived.”
avk 10/13::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.doc16 PW3 Aatmaram Aangre, who is cousin uncle of
deceased Sujata, has stated in his cross-examination that the first
evacuation of Sujata was done by Dr.Saigaonkar at Wai. She
again remained pregnant and then she was taken to Dr.Purohit.
At that place, evacuation was done. This witness has candidly
accepted the fact that he has not stated to police while recording
his statement that deceased Sujata had disclosed to him that her
abortions were done against her will.
17 The prosecution has placed on record medical
certificates at Exhibits 16 and 17 in respect of medical termination
of pregnancy of deceased Sujata. These certificates reveal that
initially on 9th July 1999, Sujata was found to be a patient of
incomplete abortion and she was bleeding per vagina. Therefore,
evacuation was done under general anesthesia by Dr.Saigaonkar.
Another certificate reveals that on 24th October 1999, Sujata was
admitted to hospital of Dr.Purohit as a patient of vaginal
bleeding, pain in hypogastrium as well as fever. The certificate at
Exhibit 17 shows that evacuation was done for inevitable abortion
avk 11/13
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.docdue to pelvic infection. This evidence adduced by the prosecution
indicates that there were no forced abortions on deceased Sujata
done against her will or consent by the respondent/accused.
Thus, the very substratum of the prosecution case is shaken from
the evidence adduced by the prosecution itself.
18 The term "cruelty" implies harsh and harmful conduct
with certain intensity and persistence. It covers act causing both
physical and mental agony as well as torture or tyranny.
Harassment though not defined in Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code, amounts to subjecting a person with unbearable,
continuous or repeated unprovoked vexatious attacks causing
harm or pain. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code does not
come into play in every case of harassment and / or cruelty. The
prosecution is required to prove willful conduct of such a nature
as is likely to propel or compel to commit suicide or to cause grave
injury or danger to her life, limb or health. In the case in hand,
allegations coming on record from the mouth of near and dear
ones of the deceased are not of such a nature which could drive
avk 12/13
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::
APPEAL-1098-2002.docSujata to commit suicide. They are not of sufficient gravity. No
grave or sudden provocation to deceased Sujata to end her life can
be found from the evidence of the prosecution. To crown this all,
evidence of PW4 Jaywant Mandhare, who is next door neighbour,
as well as landlord of the deceased goes to show that everything
was well in matrimonial life of deceased Sujata. Thus, I am
unable to find out any instigation, provocation, incitement or
encouragement by the respondent/accused to deceased Sujata to
end her life by subjecting her to cruelty as defined by explanation
to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
19 No infirmity, as such, can be found in the impugned
judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent/accused
recorded by the learned trial court.
20 In the result, the appeal is devoid of merits and the
same is dismissed.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 13/13
::: Uploaded on - 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:08:49 :::