SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Deepak Son Of Narayanappa Tewere -vs- State Of Maharashtra on 26 April, 1994

Bombay High Court Deepak Son Of Narayanappa Tewere -vs- State Of Maharashtra on 26 April, 1994
Equivalent citations:1995 (4) BomCR 386, 1995 CriLJ 2219
Author: R Lodha
Bench: H Dhabe, R Lodha

JUDGMENT

R.M. Lodha, J.

1. Yet another young woman, aged about 23 years has died within 2 1/2 months of her marriage at the husband’s house. Her death is accidental or suicidal or homicidal, is the question and if homicidal who is responsible.

2. Deepak Narayanappa Tewere (accused No. 1-husband), Suresh Narayanappa Tewere (accused No. 2-husband’s brother), Dattatraya Narayanappa Tewere (accused No. 3-husband’s brother), Smt. Vatsalabai w/o Narayanappa Tewere (accused No. 4-husband’s mother), Smt. Sulochana Keshaoappaa Bare (accused No. 5-husband’s sister), Smt Triveni Suresh Tewere (accused No. 6-wife of husband’s brother Suresh, accused No. 2) and Smt. Prabha Vijayappa Ruikar (accused No. 7-husband’s sister) were charged of the offences under Section 302. I.P.C. or under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C, Section 201, I.P.C. or under Section 201 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and under Section 498A, I.P.C. or under Section 498A read with Section 34, I.P.C., by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim on 4-2-1993 and the charges read as under :-

“That, on or about 22nd April 1992 at 4-40 a.m. at Burudpura, Karanja within the jurisdiction of Karanja Police Station, you accused either individually or in furtherance of common intention committed murder of Usha w/o Deepak Teware, R/o Karanja and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302, I.P.C., simplicitor or under Section 302 r/w 34, I.P.C and within my cognizance.

At the same time and place and in the course of the same transaction, you accused either individually or in furtherance of common intention knowing that certain offence, murder of Usha W/o Dipak, punishable with death has been committed, did cause certain evidence of the said offence to disappear to wit-burnt deadbody of Usha, with the intention of screening yourself from legal punishment and thereby committed an offence punishable either under Section 201, I.P.C., simplicitor or under section 201 r/w 34, I.P.C. and within my cognizance.

Prior to the aforesaid date and at the same place you accused either individually or in furtherance of common intention, subjected Usha W/o Dipak to cruelty by harassing and illtreating her and your wilful conduct which was of such a nature, as was likely to drive ithe said woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury to her life limb or health and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 498A, I.P.C., simplicitor or under Section 498A r/w 34, I.P.C. and within my cognizance”.

3. The prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that Ushatai, resident of Nandurbar, got married with the accused No. 1 Deepak on 9-2-1992 at Murtizapur. Ushatai did not have father and as such, her mother Smt. Sumanbai (P.W. 2) was living at her maternal place at Nandurbar. The marriage was got settled by Purushottam Laxmanappa Teware (P.W. 1), resident of Murtizapur and Shivlingappa Sadashivappa Pimple (P.W. 3). In the marriage, Smt. Sumanbai, mother of Ushatai spent Rs. 10,000/- and rest of the amount was spent by Purushottam Laxmanappa Teware (P.W. 1). About 10 days after the marriage, Ushatai alone came to the place of Purushottam (P.W. 1) at Murtizapur and told him that she was being ill-treated by the accused for the demand of Rs. 10,000/- and then Purushottam (P.W. 1) called Sumanbai (P.W. 2), mother of Ushatai from Nandurbar an then Ushatai was sent to her matrimonial home at Karanja. about one month thereafter Ushatai and Deepak (accused No. 1) came to Nandurbar and Ushatai started weeping. Accused No. 1 Deepak demanded the amount which could not be given by Smt. Sumanbai (P.W. 2) and then Deepak (accused No. 1) left Suman’s place angrily with Ushatai.

4. Purushottam (P.W. 1) received information at about 6.00 O’ clock on 22-4-1992 from the Police Station, Karanja about the death of Ushatai and on receipt of such information, Purushottam, his wife and Shivlingappa (P.W. 3) left for Karanja and reached there and they found that Ushatai’s body was substantially burnt and she was lying dead on the table in the hospital. Purushottam (P.W. 1) then went to Police Station, Karanja and lodged his report (exhibit 78) and one the basis of the said report, First Information Report was drawn at Police Station, Karanja which is at exhibit 87). On the said report, crime under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against Deepak (accused No. 1) and Smt. Vatsalabai (accused No. 4). On post-mortem of body of deceased Ushatai having been done by Dr. C. S. Khatri, it transpired that Ushatai had died not due to burn injuries, but due to throttling. The Post-mortem Report (exhibit 84) which was prepared and drawn by Dr. C. S. Khatri (P.W. 5) revealed that Ushatai died because of respiratory failure, due to throttling and according, the case was registered under Sections 302,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation