902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.308 OF 2016
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.313 OF 2017
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.308 OF 2016
SUBHASH GOPAL JADHAV )…APPELLANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )…RESPONDENT
Ms.Shraddha Sawant, Appointed Advocate for the Appellant.
Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 20th APRIL 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT :
1 The application for suspension of sentence imposed on
the appellant / accused and releasing him on bail came to be
argued by the learned advocate appointed to represent the
appellant / accused at the cost of the State. Upon arguing that
avk 1/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
the application for suspension of sentence filed by the accused
through jail, the learned appointed advocate submitted that
arguments advanced by her should be treated as her final
arguments in support of the appeal. The learned APP also
advanced her arguments and submitted that appeal itself can be
disposed of finally in terms of the arguments advanced by her.
That is how the appeal itself is being decided finally.
2 By this appeal, the appellant / accussed is challenging
the judgment and order dated 21st July 2014 passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, Mumbai, in
Sessions Case No.666 of 2012, thereby convicting him of offences
punishable under Sections 307 and 498A of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860, and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for 10 years apart from direction to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- and in
default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 1 year for
the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence punishable
under Section 498A of the IPC.
avk 2/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
3 Facts necessary for deciding the instant appeal are
thus:
According to the prosecution case, victim of the crime in
question is PW1 Chhaya Subhash Jadhav. She is the wife of the
appellant / accused. The couple had two sons out of this wedlock.
The appellant / accused was working as a watchman whereas
PW1 Chhaya Jadhav was working as a maid servant. They were
residing in a tenanted room owned by one Geeta Yadav. The
appellant / accused was not providing any money to his wife PW1
Chhaya Jadhav for household expenses.
4 PW13 Shantabai is mother of PW1 Chhaya Jadhav.
She had sold agricultural land owned by her and had received an
amount of Rs.5,00,000/-. The appellant / accused was frequently
asking PW1 Chhaya Jadhav to bring money from his mother-in-
law PW13 Shantabai. Because of this demand of money, there
used to be frequent quarrel between PW1 Chhaya Jadhav and her
husband – appellant / accused Subhash Jadhav. It is case of the
prosecution that PW1 Chhaya Jadhav lodged several complaints
avk 3/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
against the appellant / accused with D.N.Nagar Police Station and
started residing separately from the appellant / accused by joining
company of her mother. The appellant / accused had threatened
to kill her.
5 According to the prosecution case, on 10 th July 12012
at about 9.50 p.m., PW1 Chhaya Jadhav was proceeding to the
house of one Alpana by Juhu-Versova Link Road for discharging
her duties as a maid servant. At bus stop no.56 on that road, the
appellant / accused accosted her and assaulted her by means of a
sharp edged weapon on her head. PW1 Chhaya Jadhav started
bleeding profusely and cried for help. Passers-by from the road
gathered. PW3 Abdul Patni intervened in the assault. PW6
Mahesh Patel had also seen the incident. PW8 Salim Khan also
reached the spot of the incident. Information of the incident was
immediately given to the police. PW7 Gajanan Yelve – Head
Constable, PW9 Ravindra Salunkhe – Police Nayak, PW10 Ijaz
Shaikh – Police Nayak and PW11 Madhukar Dhuri – Head
Constable reached the spot of the incident. The FIR of the
avk 4/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
incident came to be lodged by PW1 Chhaya Jadhav. Injured PW1
Chhaya Jadhav was sent to Cooper Hospital for medical
treatment. PW14 Dr.Dale Rodricues treated her at that hospital.
Investigation of this Crime No.222 of 2012 for offences punishable
under Sections 307 and 341 of the IPC and Section 37 read with
135 of the Bombay Police Act registered with D.N.Nagar Police
Station, was carried on by PW15 Sandeep Vedpathak – P.S.I.
attached to that police station. On completion of investigation, he
filed charge-sheet against the appellant / accused and accordingly
Sessions Case No.666 of 2012 came to be registered.
6 Charges for offences punishable under Sections 307
and 498A of the IPC and under Section 37 read with 135 of the
Bombay Police Act came to be framed against the appellant /
accused. He abjured his guilt and claimed trial. In order to bring
home the guilt to the appellant / accused, the prosecution has
examined in all sixteen witnesses. After hearing the parties, the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, by the impugned
judgment and order was pleased to convict the appellant /
avk 5/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
accused and sentenced him as indicated in the opening paragraph
of this judgment.
7 I have heard the learned advocate appearing for the
appellant / accused. She vehemently argued that the incident of
assault itself is not proved by the prosecution because the
evidence on record suggests that mother of PW1 Chhaya Jadhav
namely PW13 Shantabai had received an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-
out of sale of her agricultural land and one Mahesh Chorge was
demanding his share out of that amount. Evidence on record
coming from cross-examination of PW1 Chhaya Jadhav and PW2
Vishal Jadhav – her son, goes to show that there used to be
frequent quarrels between Mahesh Chorge and PW1 Chhaya
Jadhav as well as PW13 Shantabai on account of demand of
money by Mahesh Chorge and in every probability Mahesh Chorge
might have assaulted PW1 Chhaya Jadhav because of this quarrel.
The learned advocate further argued that evidence of PW14
Dr.Dale Rodricues serving with Cooper Hospital goes to show that
the victim of the crime in question has suffered contused lacerated
avk 6/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
wounds and it is the case of the prosecution that she was
assaulted by a sharp edged weapon called as chopper. The
learned advocate for the appellant / accused argued that injuries
found on the victim, as such, cannot be attributed to a sharp
edged weapon like a chopper and therefore, evidence of PW1
Chhaya Jadhav as well as other witnesses examined by the
prosecution is not believable. Therefore, benefit of doubt goes to
the appellant / accused. It is further argued that even if it is
assumed that the injured had suffered injuries as disclosed by
PW14 Dr.Dale Rodricues, then also, the prosecution has failed to
make out the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, as
for attracting this penal provision, the prosecution is required to
establish that the act was done with an intention to commit
murder of the victim. This ingredient of the offence is missing
from the evidence of the prosecution and therefore, conviction of
the appellant / accused for the offence punishable under Section
307 of the IPC is bad in law. It is further argued that evidence of
the prosecution is scanty in order to infer commission of the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.
avk 7/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
8 As against this, the learned APP argued that evidence
of eye witnesses present on the spot shows that the appellant /
accused was uttering that he wants to kill the victim of the crime
and same thing is reflected even from the evidence of PW13
Shantabai – mother of the victim of the crime. This, according to
the learned APP, demonstrated intention of the appellant /
accused to kill the injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav. The learned APP
further argued that successive blows were dealt by chopper on
head of the injured witness which reflects intention of the
appellant / accused. The learned APP further argued that the
injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav was subjected to cruelty by the
appellant / accused as he was harassing injured victim PW1
Chhaya Jadhav – his wife for coercing her to bring money from
her mother PW13 Shantabai which she had received from sale of
her agricultural land. Ill-treatment to her is reflected from reports
of non-cognizable offences proved by the prosecution which are at
Exhibit 48 onwards. With this, the learned APP supported the
impugned judgment and order of conviction.
avk 8/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
9 At the outset, it is apposite to note reasonings given by
the learned trial court in order to convict the appellant / accused
of offences punishable under Sections 307 of the IPC and 498A of
the IPC. Reasoning for coming to the conclusion that the appellant
/ accused has committed an attempt to commit murder of PW1
Chhaya Jadhav and subjected her to cruelty culled out from the
impugned judgment reads thus :
“63 It is the case of prosecution that the
accused, who is the husband of victim has
assaulted on road, when she was going for her
work. The assault was by weapon like Chopper.
It was on vital part of victim. The victim herself
has deposed that while she was going for her
work, the accused assaulted on her head with
Chopper.
71 All the witnesses deposed as per their
statements. The evidence of all the witnesses is
trustworthy. The prosecution has proved the
offence under Section 307 of IPC against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, I
answer Point Nos. 1 in affirmative.
avk 9/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc72 The victim has deposed that the accused
used to harass her, beat her, he was not giving
money for household expenses, he tortured her
for demand of money. The complaint lodged in
Mahila Cell and the NCs lodged by the victim,
proves the physical and mental torture. She has
left the house, as the accused beat her
mercilessly and thereafter, he tried to kill her by
assaulting her by chopper on her head. The
cruelty comes under the four corners of
definition of Section 498A of IPC. Hence, offence
under Section 498A is proved against accused
and I answer Point No.2 in affirmative.”
10 Perusal of reasonings given in these paragraphs for
convicting the appellant / accused for offences punishable under
Sections 307 and 498A of the IPC are as such to the effect that
assault was by a weapon like chopper, seat of the injury was on
head of injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav and the appellant / accused
used to harass and beat PW1 Chhaya Jadhav by not giving money
for household expenses and had tried to kill her. The question will
be whether such reasons are sufficient to justify conviction under
Sections 307 and 498A of the IPC.
avk 10/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
11 Now let us examine whether the prosecution has
established that assault on PW1 Chhaya Jadhav was infact caused
by the appellant / accused. Therefore we will consider his
intention for causing such assault, if assault by him is established.
It is not in dispute that PW1 Chhaya Jadhav is wife of the
appellant / accused and the couple was having two sons. In this
backdrop it is in evidence of PW1 Chhaya Jadhav that her
husband was working as a watchman and was not giving any
money to her for household expenses. She further deposed that
her mother sold agricultural land from the village and the
appellant / accused was demanding Rs.10,00,000/- from her
mother. PW1 Chhaya Jadhav was very specific in stating that on
this count the appellant / accused started beating her and she was
beaten by him on 30th and 31st June 2012. She has also stated that
she lodged the report of this incident to police.
12 So far as incident of assault on her is concerned, PW1
Chhaya Jadhav has stated that on 10th July 2012 at about 10.00
p.m. she was going to attend her work as a maid servant at the
avk 11/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
house of one Alpana. The appellant / accused accosted her on her
way and started assaulting her on head with a weapon like knife.
She stated that she raised shouts and became unconscious. She
regained consciousness at Cooper Hospital, Mumbai, and found
that there were 32 stitches on her head. Cross-examination of
PW1 Chhaya Jadhav shows that one Mahesh Chorge was having
share in agricultural land owned by her mother PW13 Shantabai
and Mahesh was quarreling with her as well as her mother on that
transaction of sale. The defence has elicited from cross-
examination of injured witness PW1 Chhaya Jadhav that the
appellant / accused had given an amount of Rs.1 Lakh to mother
of this witness i.e. to PW13 Shantabai.
13 Exhibit 19 is the FIR lodged by PW1 Chhaya Jadhav. It
is in tune with her evidence. Exhibit 48 is N.C.No.1124 of 2012
lodged by PW1 Chhaya Jadhav with Police Station Versova
wherein she reported that the appellant / accused did not like
food cooked by her and therefore he assaulted her by means of
hands. Another NC report lodged by PW1 Chhaya Jadhav is dated
avk 12/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
1st June 2012. It is also with Police Station Versova. Averments
are to the effect that by calling her on her mobile phone, the
appellant / accused gave abuses to her by questioning her as to
why she had vacated the room. Third NC is dated 19 th July 2012
lodged with Police Station Versova by PW13 Shantabai – mother
of PW1 Chhaya Jadhav. Averments therein are to the effect that
the appellant / accused had threatened to kill her as well as her
daughter.
14 Evidence of PW14 Dr.Dale Rodricues which is duly
corroborated by contemporaneous documents in the nature of
medical certificate at Exhibit 39 shows that soon after the alleged
incident, PW1 Chhaya Jadhav came to be admitted to Cooper
Hospital where he was serving as a Senior Registrar and upon her
examination he found in all five injuries on person of PW1 Chhaya
Jadhav. It, thus, makes it clear that PW1 Chhaya Jadhav had
suffered injuries in the incident in question which she attributes to
the appellant / accused. PW1 Chhaya Jadhav as such, is an
injured witness. It is well settled that injured witnesses are
avk 13/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
stamped witnesses whose presence on the scene of occurrence,
they being the victim of the crime in question, cannot be doubted.
Being an injured witness, there is no possibility that PW1 Chhaya
Jadhav will spare real culprit and would rope in an innocent
person. In a case of single victim and single accused, the theory of
false implication does not deserve consideration for a moment.
15 Though evidence of the injured witness does not
require corroboration to come to the conclusion regarding assault
on such witness, let us examine whether evidence of PW1 Chhaya
Jadhav is corroborated by other evidence on record. The
prosecution has examined Abdul Rehman Patni as PW3 in the
instant case. His evidence is to the effect that on 10 th July 2012 at
about 9.45 p.m., he was proceeding by his scooter from Juhu-
Versova Link Road when he saw one man stabbing a woman with
a chopper. This witness deposed that said person was assaulting a
woman on her head and he tried to save that lady. He further
deposed that injured woman fell down bleeding from her head
and other people also gathered on the spot. As per version of this
avk 14/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
witness, his T-Shirt was stained with blood and the same came to
be seized by the police at the time of preparation of the spot
panchnama. This witness has duly identified his T-Shirt so also the
appellant / accused while in the dock. There is nothing in cross-
examination of this witness to doubt his version regarding the
incident. This witness is totally disinterested witness, and
therefore, his testimony cannot be discarded. I see no reason to
disbelieve his version. T-Shirt of this witness was sent for forensic
examination and the report of the Chemical Analyser shows that
human blood of “A” group was found on his T-Shirt. This material
duly corroborates version of this independent witness who was
rather a natural witness to the incident.
16 PW6 Mahesh Patel is another eye witness to the
incident in question and presence of this witness on the spot is
reflected even from the spot panchnama Exhibit 26. It is in
evidence of this witness that on 10th July 2012, at about 8.50 p.m.,
he was coming from Linking road towards Juhu and he heard a
lady shouting “bachav bachav.” He saw that lady was bleeding
avk 15/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
and two persons were present on the spot. As per version of this
witness, one person was having two wheeler vehicle and the
another person was assaulting that lady. Hand of the assailant
was held by the another person having the two wheeler vehicle.
This witness has also identified the appellant / accused as the
person who was assaulting the lady on the spot. Evidence of PW6
Mahesh Patel as such, duly corroborates version of injured PW1
Chhaya Jadhav and that of PW3 Abdul Patni.
17 PW7 Gajanan Yelve, Head Constable, was on patrolling
duty at Juhu-Link Road. His evidence shows that one person told
him about gathering of persons near the bus stop and therefore,
he rushed to the spot to see persons gathered there assaulting one
person who was holding a chopper. He had also seen a lady
present on the spot bleeding from her head. This witness then
asked name of the person holding the chopper and that person
told his name as Subhash.
avk 16/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
18 PW9 Ravindra Salunkhe – Police Nayak, PW10 Ijaz
Shaikh – Police Nayak and PW11 Madhukar Dhuri – Head
Constable are other police personnels who rushed to the spot soon
after the incident. They saw presence of the appellant / accused
on the spot and injuries caused to him because of beating by
persons who gathered on the spot. PW15 Sandeep Vedpathak –
Police Sub-Inspector had then taken the appellant / accused to the
police station.
19 PW8 Salim Khan is also a witness, who visited the spot
soon after the incident. He is knowing the appellant / accused as
well as injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav. This witness had seen people
gathered on the spot assaulting the appellant / accused Subhash
in presence of PW1 Chhaya Jadhav who was smeared with blood.
20 The spot of the incident came to be inspected soon
after the incident in presence of PW5 Abbas Ansari – panch
witness. Evidence of this witness as well as that of PW15 Sandeep
Vedpathak – Police Sub-Inspector goes to show that his two
avk 17/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
wheeler vehicle was present on the spot and it was having stains
of blood on its seat. Those stains of blood were collected by police
and spot panchnama Exhibit 26 was prepared. Similarly, the
chopper allegedly used in commission of crime was also seized by
preparing seizure panchnama Exhibit 27. Clothes of injured PW1
Chhaya Jadhav came to be seized in presence of PW4 Shamsuddin
Khan vide seizure panchnama Exhibit 24. Clothes of accused
Subhash were also seized and through PW12 Suresh Rahate,
Police Nayak, seized articles were sent for chemical analysis.
Report of Chemical Analyser shows that clothes of the injured
PW1 Chhaya Jadhav, clothes seized from the appellant / accused
soon after the incident, so also T-Shirt seized from PW3 Abdul
Patni were stained with human blood of “A” origin.
21 All this evidence adduced by the prosecution
unerringly points out that it was the appellant / accused who had
assaulted the injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav by giving blows of
chopper on her head. However, for making out the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the IPC, causing of wounds by
avk 18/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
itself is not sufficient. Rather, causing hurt is not at all necessary
for making out the offence punishable under Section 307 of the
IPC. Nature of wounds suffered by the victim may give some
assistance to the court for inferring intention of the appellant /
accused in committing the assault. Let us, therefore, examine
what were the injuries suffered by PW1 Chhaya Jadhav in the
incident in question. PW14 Dr.Dale Rodricues has stated that
injured Chhaya Jadhav had suffered following injuries :
“1. Left Frontal region fresh injury.
2. Left Parietal region right and left
3. Two injuries on the occipital region.
4. All the injuries were fresh.
5. All were simple injuries.”
Medical certificate issued by this witness is at Exhibit 39. Version
of this Medical Officer working with the Cooper Hospital shows
that injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav had suffered five contused
lacerated wounds on her head. Nature of those injuries can be
seen from the Medical Certificate at Exhibit 39. It shows that all
injuries were caused by a blunt weapon. Nature of those injuries
as stated in Medical Certificate at Exhibit 39 are simple. It is,
thus, clear that injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav had suffered five
avk 19/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
simple injuries by blunt weapon on her head. This obviously
makes it clear that assault was not from the sharp edged side of
the chopper. She was assaulted on her head by blunt side of the
chopper. Exhibit 27 is the seizure panchnama of that chopper.
Perusal of that seizure panchnama shows that it was a big weapon
having total length of 46.5 cm. It was having sharp edge with a
pointed end. However, this weapon was used from it blunt side by
the appellant / accused in assault on his wife – PW1 Chhaya
Jadhav.
22 At the cost of repetition, it is stated that to justify
conviction under Section 307 of the IPC, it is not necessary that
bodily injury capable causing death should have been inflicted. If
intention coupled with an overt act is established, then the offence
punishable under Section 307 of the IPC can be made out. Such
intention can be gathered from nature of weapon used, seat of the
injury inflicted on the victim, force of blows, number of injuries
etc. In the case in hand, though the appellant / accused was
armed with a weapon having 46.5 cms. length with a sharp edge
avk 20/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
on one side, injuries inflicted were by blunt side of the weapon.
Though, blows were given by such a heavy weapon, no fracture
injury to skull was caused. Resultant injuries were simple in
nature. This implies that blows were not given with force. As
such, it is seen that injuries were not inflicted on PW1 Chhaya
Jadhav by the appellant / accused with requisite intention as well
as knowledge. Therefore, considering the nature of injuries
though those were caused by a heavy sharp edged weapon, it is
difficult to conclude that the assault was with an intention to
commit murder of PW1 Chhaya Jadhav. Therefore, though it is
proved by the prosecution that the appellant / accused had
assaulted PW1 Chhaya Jadhav on her head by means of a chopper,
the offence is not falling under the purview of Section 307 of the
IPC. Similarly, it is not falling under any of the category described
in Section 320 of the IPC. Wounds suffered by PW1 Chhaya
Jadhav were simple in nature as seen from the evidence of the
Medical Officer and the injury certificate. Therefore, it is not
possible to conclude that those wounds were endangering her life.
Even PW14 Dr.Dale Rodricues has not spoken about this. There is
avk 21/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
no other evidence to infer that hurt caused to PW1 Chhaya Jadhav
falls under category 8 of Section 320 of the IPC. However, hurt
was caused to PW1 Chhaya Jadhav by a chopper which is an
instrument of stabbing or cutting. It is an instrument which if
used as a weapon for offence can certainly cause death of a
person. As such, the offence which the prosecution establishes
from the evidence adduced by it falls under Section 324 of the
IPC.
23 Now let us examine whether the injured wife was
subjected to cruelty by the appellant / accused. Explanation to
Section 498A of IPC defines the term “cruelty” and it reads thus :
“For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means
– (a) any willful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
avk 22/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.docharassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or
is on account of failure by her or any person
related to her to meet such demand.”
24 The prosecution has founded its case on the accusation
that the appellant / accused used to demand money which mother
of the injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav had received on account of
sale of her agricultural land and due to failure to give such money,
he used to subject his wife PW1 Chhaya Jadhav to cruelty. Very
substratum of the prosecution case is collapsing because of version
of PW13 Shantabai – mother-in-law of the appellant / accused
and mother of injured PW1 Chhaya Jadhav. PW13 Shantabai has
not spoken that the appellant / accused used to demand money
from her through her daughter PW1 Chhaya Jadhav. Moreover, it
is seen from cross-examination of PW1 Chhaya Jadhav that it was
the appellant / accused who had given an amount of Rs.1 lakh to
PW13 Shantabai. PW13 Shantabai has not stated in her evidence
avk 23/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
that the appellant / accused had ever demanded back this amount
of Rs.1 lakh given by him to her. PW1 Chhaya Jadhav is also not
stating anything on this aspect. In the teeth of this fact situation,
it is not possible to hold that there used to be demand of money
by the appellant / accused to his wife PW1 Chhaya Jadhav as her
mother had received Rs.5 lakh because of sale of her agricultural
land. As such, it cannot be said that there was harassment of PW1
Chhaya Jadhav for coercing her to meet illegal demand of money
by the appellant / accused. In this view of the matter, there is no
evidence to infer “cruelty” as postulated in Clause (b) of Section
498A of the IPC.
25 Now let us examine whether the appellant / accused
had subjected PW1 Chhaya Jadhav – his wife with willful conduct
of such a nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health. On this
aspect, what is stated by PW1 Chhaya Jadhav is to the effect that
the appellant / accused was beating her and she was beaten on
30th and 31st June 2012. Though she attributed for this beating,
avk 24/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
his demand of Rs.10 lakh from her mother, the evidence as
discussed in foregoing paragraphs does not indicate this reason for
the alleged beating. Moreover, PW1 Chhaya Jadhav is falsified on
this aspect by her own reports which were registered as non-
cognizable cases by police. Her first NC lodged with Versova
Police station, as stated in foregoing paragraphs, shows assault by
hand by the appellant / accused for the reason that he did not like
food cooked by her. This indicates “domestic cruelty” rather than
“legal cruelty” as defined by Explanation to Section 498A of the
IPC. Other NCs lodged by PW1 Chhaya Jadhav are also not
reflecting “cruelty” to her as defined by Explanation to Section
498A of the IPC. Those are regarding abuses by calling her
telephonically and threatening to her mother. In the result, the
charge under Section 498A of the IPC also fails. However, the
learned trial court has recorded conviction on this count without
keeping in mind ingredients of alleged offences and evidence
required to prove them. Therefore, the impugned judgment and
order is totally unsustainable.
avk 25/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
26 In the result, I proceed to pass the following order :
i) The appeal is partly allowed.
ii) Conviction and resultant sentence imposed on the
appellant / accused for the offence punishable under
Sections 307 and 498A of the IPC recorded by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mumbai, in
Sessions Case No.666 of 2012 is quashed and set
aside.
iii) The appellant / accused is acquitted of offences
punishable under Sections 307 and 498A of the IPC.
iv) The appellant / accused is convicted of the offence
punishable under Section 324 of the IPC and he is
sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period
of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.100, and in default,
to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period
of one month.
avk 26/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::
902-APPEAL-308-2016-APPA- 313-2017.doc
v) The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
vi) A copy of this judgment and order be sent to the
concerned prison where the appellant / accused is
reportedly undergoing the jail sentence. If the
appellant / accused has undergone the sentence
imposed on him by this judgment and order, he be
released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
vii) With disposal of this appeal, pending Criminal
Application No.313 of 2017 stands disposed of.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 27/27
::: Uploaded on – 26/04/2017 26/04/2017 23:52:26 :::