Judgment 1 apeal18.2005.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 18/2005
The State of Maharashtra,
Through PSO, Morshi,
Tq. Morshi, Dist. Amravati
…. APPELLANT
// VERSUS //
1] Naresh @ Narendra Vishnuji Raut,
Aged about 23 years,
2] Vishnuji Mahadeorao Raut,
Aged about 50 years,
3] Sharad Vishnuji Raut,
Aged 25 years,
4] Sau. Bebi Vishnuji Raut,
Aged about 48 years,
5] Sau. Varsha Sharad Raut,
Aged about 25 years,
6] Sau. Shalu Dilip Lahane,
Aged about 27 years,
R/o Hiwarkhed, Tq. Morshi,
Dist. Amravati
…. RESPONDENT(S)
_
Ms. N.P. Mehta, APP for the appellant/State
Shri P.S. Khubalkar, Advocate for the respondents
_
CORAM : Z.A.HAQ, J.
DATED : 25/05/2018
Date of Reserving Judgment:- 24/05/2018
Date of Pronouncing Judgment:- 25/05/2018
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 2 apeal18.2005.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1] Heard Ms. N.P. Mehta, APP for the appellant/State and Shri P.S.
Khubalkar, Advocate for the respondents/accused.
2] The appellant/State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal to
challenge the judgment passed by the learned Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions
Judge acquitting the respondents/accused of the charge of the offences
punishable under Section 498A, Section 306 read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code.
3] The case of the prosecution is:-
The marriage between the respondent/accused no. 1 and
Rukhma (deceased) was solemnized on 13/04/2002. On 09/05/2002, she
had been to village Ekdara, her native town to attend marriage in the family
of one Haribhau Chaudhari. Rukhma had met her mother at the place where
function of marriage took place and that time, Rukhma told her mother that
the respondents/accused were ill-treating her on trifle matters and she was
beaten by the respondents/accused. On 12/05/2002, Rukhma consumed
poisonous substance and committed suicide. On 13/05/2002, Pundlikrao
Natthuji Gudadhe (father of Rukhma) lodged complaint at Police Station,
Morshi alleging that Rukhma committed suicide due to ill-treatment and
cruelty meted out to her by all the respondents/accused.
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 3 apeal18.2005.odt
Initially, the case of accidental death was registered at the Police
Station, Morshi however, after the report was lodged by Pundlikrao Natthuji
Gudadhe, offence vide Crime No. 79/2002 was registered. The investigation
was undertaken by Police Sub-Inspector Nandu Ramaji Mankari and after
completing the investigation and the necessary formalities, charge-sheet was
filed in the Court of J.M.F.C., Morshi. As offence punishable under Section
306 is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to
the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the
offences punishable under Section 498A, Section 306 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code and explained them to the respondents/accused. The
respondents/accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried. After
conducting the trial, the learned Sessions Judge recorded that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case and acquitted the
respondents/accused.
4] Rukhma died within one month of her marriage with the
respondent/accused no. 1. Undisputedly, Rukhma committed suicide and the
incident occurred at her matrimonial house.
Sulabha (wife of Pundlikrao Natthuji Gudadhe and mother of
Rukhma) is examined as PW-3. Sulabha has stated that the
respondents/accused used to beat Rukhma on trifle matters. Sulabha stated
that Rukham had told her when she met at the marriage function of
Haribhau’s son that milk was spilled over by her and because of it her
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 4 apeal18.2005.odt
mother-in-law and sister-in-law told her that if she causes such loss they will
kill her.
5] Column no. 17 of the memorandum of post-mortem
examination of Rukhma (Exh. 59) shows that contused abrasion 1/4 inch x
1/8 inch was noticed on outer pinna of left ear and blood clots was also
found. In the evidence of Sulabha, it has come on record that she saw that
blood was oozing from the ear of Rukhma.
I am conscious that Sulabha, being mother of Rukhma is
interested witness and her evidence will have to be examined with
circumspection. The entry in column no. 17 of the memorandum of post-
mortem examination of Rukhma corroborates the evidence of Sulabha about
bleeding injury to Rukhma on her ear.
6] The defence of the respondents/accused is that Rukhma had
extra-marital affair and therefore she was not interested in cohabiting with
respondent/accused no. 1. The defence of the respondents/accused is
reflected from suggestion given to Pundlikrao Natthuji Gudadhe (PW-1) in
his cross-examination (see para no. 6 of the notes of evidence of Pundlikrao
Natthuji Gudadhe). The suggestion is to the effect that deceased had already
conceived from Tryambak Charape with whom she had an affair prior to her
marriage with the respondent/accused no. 1. Further, the suggestion given to
Pundlikrao Natthuji Gudadhe was that Rukhma consumed excess dose of
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 5 apeal18.2005.odt
some pills to terminate the pregnancy.
Though the respondents/accused tried to raise the defence that
death of Rukhma was caused because of over dose of pills which were
consumed to terminate the pregnancy, the memorandum of post-mortem of
Rukhma does not support the claim of the respondents/accused. The
evidence on record does not show that Rukhma was pregnant at the time of
the incident. The evidence on record does not show that the pills consumed
by Rukhma were those which are taken for termination of pregnancy.
If the facts of the case and the evidence which has come on
record are examined keeping in view the provisions of Section 113A of the
Evidence Act, and the fact that death of Rukhma took place in her
matrimonial house, it has to be held that Rukhma committed suicide because
of ill-treatment and cruelty meted out to her.
7] The question arises as to who ill-treated Rukhma and who
subjected to her cruelty ? I find that there is no specific evidence on record
on the basis on which it can be said that the prosecution has proved its case
against the respondent/accused nos. 2 to 6. Only a statement in the evidence
of Sulabha that Rukhma had told her that respondent/accused no. 4
(mother-in-law of Rukhma) was beating Rukhma is not sufficient to hold that
the respondent/accused no. 4 is guilty of offence punishable under Section
498A and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Similarly, the evidence on
record is not sufficient to hold that the respondent/accused nos. 2, 3, 5 and 6
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 6 apeal18.2005.odt
are guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A and Section 306 of the
Indian Penal Code.
8] Pundlikrao Natthuji Gudadhe (PW-1) has stated in his evidence
that Rukhma had told him that the respondent/accused no. 1 used to beat
Rukhma under the influence of alcohol. The memorandum of post-mortem
examination of Rukhma shows that Rukhma had bleeding injury over her left
ear and blood clots were found. In view of this evidence, coupled with the
presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, in my view, it has to
held that accused no. 1/Naresh @ Narendra Vishnuji Raut subjected
Rukhma to cruelty and ill-treated her which drove Rukhma to commit
suicide. Hence, it has to be held that the respondent/accused no. 1 is liable
for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. I find that the prosecution has not been able to prove that
respondent/accused no. 1 is liable for conviction for the offence punishable
under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
9] The learned advocate for the respondents/accused submitted
that the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the
respondents/accused should not be reversed as it cannot be said that the
judgment is perverse or some relevant evidence is not considered by the
Sessions Court. To support the submission, reliance is placed on the judgment
given in the case of Arulvelu and another vs. State represented by the Public
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 7 apeal18.2005.odt
Prosecutor and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC at page 206
.
It is further submitted that only subjecting deceased to cruelty is
not sufficient to hold that the respondents/accused are guilty of committing
offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, and the
prosecution has to prove that deceased was subjected to cruelty of such
nature which drove her to commit suicide. To support the submission,
reliance is placed on the judgment given in the case of Pinakin Mahipatray
Rawal vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2013) 10 SCC at page 48
.
The submission made by the learned advocate for the
respondents/accused relying on the judgment given in the case of Arulvelu
and another (supra) cannot be accepted as in the present case the learned
Sessions Judge has appreciated the evidence without adverting to the
provisions of Section 113A of the Evidence Act, and this is the material defect
which has resulted in the erroneous judgment.
The submission made by the learned advocate for the
respondents/accused relying on the judgment given in the case of Pinakin
Mahipatray Rawal (supra) also cannot be accepted as in the present case,
Rukhma committed suicide within one month of marriage and the incident
had taken place at her matrimonial house. Furthermore, the defence raised
by the respondents/accused attempting to tarnish the character of Rukhma
after her death speaks volumes.
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 8 apeal18.2005.odt
10] The learned APP has rightly relied on the judgment given in the
case of State
of West Bengal vs. Orilal Jaiswal and another
reported in
(1994) 1 SCC at page 73 to argue that there is no absolute standard of
proof in a criminal trial, and the question whether the charges framed
against the respondents/accused have been proved beyond reasonable
doubts depend on the facts and circumstances of the case and the quality of
the evidence adduced in the case. In this judgment , the Hon’ble Supreme
Court has laid down that doubt must be of a reasonable man and the
standard adopted must be a standard by a reasonable and just man for
coming to the conclusion. It is laid down that reasonableness of the doubt
must be commensurate with the nature of the offence.
11] In the present case, I find that the prosecution has brought
sufficient evidence on record to hold that the respondent/accused no. 1 is
guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
and is liable for conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code. However, the prosecution has not been able to prove
that the respondent/accused no. 1 is liable for conviction under Section 306
of the Indian Penal Code.
At the time of pronouncement of the judgment, the learned
advocate for the respondent/accused no.1 is heard on the point of
sentence.
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 9 apeal18.2005.odt
12] The learned advocate for the respondent/accused no. 1
submitted that the respondent/accused no. 1 is not involved in any other
crime/offence, is now married and is having two children and is maintaining
his family by doing labour work. He prayed that considering the facts of the
case, lenient view may be taken and instead of sentencing him to suffer
imprisonment, fine may be imposed.
13] Considering the facts of the case, I feel it appropriate to
sentence the respondent/accused no. 1-Naresh @ Narendra Vishnuji Raut to
undergo simple imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs.
Ten Thousand), and in default of payment of fine, the respondent/accused
no. 1 shall undergo simple imprisonment of further period of one month.
14] At this stage, the learned advocate for the respondent/accused
no. 1 has requested for suspension of order of sentence. It is submitted that
as the respondent/accused no. 1 has the right to file appeal to challenge this
judgment, the order of sentence be suspended. The order of sentence is
suspended for period of two months.
15] The respondent/accused no. 1 shall furnish fresh P.R. Bond for
Rs. 25,000/- and two solvent sureties/securities for the equal amount to the
satisfaction of the Sessions Court. Out of the two solvent sureties/securities,
one shall be furnished by family member of the respondent/accused no. 1.
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::
Judgment 10 apeal18.2005.odt
16] The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms. In the
circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO. 486/2018
In view of disposal of appeal, this application praying for
cancellation of warrant has become infructous, it is disposed accordingly. No
costs.
JUDGE
Ansari
::: Uploaded on – 25/05/2018 27/05/2018 01:32:47 :::