Judgment
apeal589.05 16
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.589 OF 2005
Sau.Ramabai Govindrao Donode,
Aged 48 years, Occupation : Housewife,
R/o Talegaon Dashashar, Tahsil Dhamangaon
Railway, District Amravati. ….. Appellant.
:: VERSUS ::
State of Maharashtra,
Through its Police Station Officer,
Talegaon Dashashar,
Tahsil Dhamangaon Railway,
District Amravati. ….. Respondent.
None for the Appellant.
Shri P.S.Tembhare, Additional Public Prosecutor for the
Respondent/State.
CORAM : V.M.DESHPANDE, J.
DATE : JULY 3, 2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. When the present appeal was taken up for its final
hearing, learned counsel Shri N.B.Bargat for the appellant chose
not to remain present before the Court. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor Shri P.S.Tembhare appeared for the respondent/State.
2. By the present appeal, appellant (accused No.2) is
…..2/-
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2019 05/07/2019 23:06:08 :::
Judgment
apeal589.05 16
2
challenging judgment and order of conviction dated 22.8.2005
passed by learned 6th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati
in Sessions Trial No.121/2004.
3. By the impugned judgment and order of conviction,
learned Judge of the Court below convicted accused No.2 for
offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2
years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of the
fine amount to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two
months.
4. Though learned counsel Shri N.B.Bargat for the
appellant is absent, with able assistance of learned Additional
Public Prosecutor Shri P.S.Tembhare for the respondent/State, I
have gone through entire record and proceedings of the case.
5. In Sessions Trial 121/2004, charge was framed against
3 accused persons and they are, accused No.1-Gajanan Govindrao
Donode; accused No.2-Sau.Ramabai Govindrao Donode, and
accused No.3-Vijay Govindrao Donode, for offences under Sections
…..3/-
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2019 05/07/2019 23:06:08 :::
Judgment
apeal589.05 16
3
306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Before the Trial Court, the prosecution examined its in all 8
witnesses. Though learned Judge of the Court below acquitted all
the accused persons of offences under Section 306 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and also accused No.3 of
offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, convicted accused No.2, the present appellant, and
accused No.1, the son of the appellant, for offence under Section
498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. The present appeal was filed by original accused No.2-Ramabai
alone. No appeal was preferred by accused No.1-Gajanan. It is reported to this
Court by learned Additional Public Prosecutor that Gajanan is no more.
7. On 15.6.2004, Head Constable Pralhad Uttamrao
Wankhade (PW6) was attached to Talegaon Police Station. When
he was on duty, accused No.3-Vijay came to the police station and
lodged his report (Exhibit 39). It was reported that on 14.6.2004
at about 9:00 or 9:30 at night, when he was present in his house,
his brother, accused No.1-Gajanan, came home under influence of
…..4/-
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2019 05/07/2019 23:06:08 :::
Judgment
apeal589.05 16
4
liquor and asked his wife Varsha, the deceased, to open door.
However, since he was under influence of liquor, door was not
open. He, therefore, bang it. Ultimately, Varsha opened door and,
thereafter, she was assaulted by accused No.1-Gajanan. Therefore,
Varsha ran away towards a well and jumped into the same.
Against Gajanan, offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
was registered vide Crime No.40/2004. Printed First Information
Report is at Exhibit 40. Head Constable Pralhad Wankhade
handed over investigation to Police Sub Inspector Deepak Devidas
Khandare.
8. Police Sub Inspector Deepak Khandare, examined as
PW8, conducted entire investigation and filed chargesheet.
9. Since accused No.2 was acquitted of offence under
Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, this
Court is not discussing the prosecution case and evidence in that
behalf.
10. Marriage between Varsha, the deceased, and Gajanan,
accused No.1, took placed on 18.3.2000. According to evidence of
…..5/-
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2019 05/07/2019 23:06:08 :::
Judgment
apeal589.05 16
5
prosecution witnesses Kalawatibai (PW1); Deepak (PW2), and
Chandal (PW3), mother, brother and close relative of Varsha
respectively, allegations against accused No.2 in respect of ill-
treatment are most general in nature. Evidence of Kalawatibai
shows that in fact there was dispute between accused No.2 and her
two sons. Evidence of Kampala Kathiawar (PW7), neighbor of the
accused persons, shows that partition took place between brothers
Gajanan and Vijay, accused No.3 and Gajanan was residing with
Varsha in a portion alloted to his share. Evidence of the said
witness, before he was declared hostile, shows that relation
between accused No.2 and Varsha were cordial in nature. Though
Saar Shelden (PW4) is a child witness, from his evidence it is clear
that on the date of the incident there was no cruelty at the hands
of accused No.2.
11. Looking to fact that no prior report was lodged against
accused No.2-Ramabai, the appellant, either by Varsha, the
deceased, or by her mother and brother in respect of alleged ill-
treatment practiced upon Varsha at the hands of accused No.2 and
looking to the general nature of accusations as per the evidence of
…..6/-
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2019 05/07/2019 23:06:08 :::
Judgment
apeal589.05 16
6
the prosecution witnesses, in my view, benefit of doubt is required
to be granted in favour of the appellant. Consequently, I pass
following order:
ORDER
(i) The criminal appeal is allowed.
(ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 22.8.2005 passed
by learned 6th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in
Sessions Trial No.121/2004 is hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) The appellant is acquitted of offence under Section 498-A read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) Bail Bonds of the appellant stands cancelled as the appellant is
on bail.
JUDGE
!! BRW !!
…../-
::: Uploaded on – 05/07/2019 05/07/2019 23:06:08 :::
