1 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 203 OF 2007
State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Ansing, Dist. Washim. … Appellant
VERSUS
(1) Manish Ramkrushnaappa @ Ramkisan
Makhmale, Aged about 29 years,
Occ : Service,
(2) Ramkrushna Appa @ Ramkisan Punjappa
Makhmale, Aged about 51 years,
Agriculturist,
(3) Sau. Indubai W/o Ramkrushnaappa @ Ramkisan
Makhmale, Aged about 48 years,
Agriculturist,
(4) Aruna D/o Ramkrushna Appa Makhmale,
Aged About 29 years,
Household work,
(5) Sau. Jyoti W/o Mahadeoappa Isapure,
Aged About 25 years,
Agriculturist,
Accused No. 1 to 5, r/o Bramha,
Tq. and Dist. Washim. … Respondents
————————————————————————————————-
Shri J. Y. Ghurde, Additional Public Prosecutor for the appellant
Shri R. M. Daga, Advocate for the respondents
————————————————————————————————————————
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::
2 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
CORAM : R. K. DESHPANDE AND
M. G. GIRATKAR, JJ.
Date of reserving the judgment : 21/02/2018.
Date of pronouncing the judgment : 15/03/2018.
Judgment (Per : M.G. Giratkar, J)
The State has preferred the present appeal against the
judgment of acquittal passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 78/2006 by which all the
respondents/accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.
2. The case of prosecution against all the respondents in short
is as under :
(i) Jayshree was the daughter of Shankarrrao Raghoji Dukandar.
Marriage of Jayshree was solemnized with the respondent no. 1 on
28-5-2002. Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-
law of deceased Jayshree. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are sister-in-laws of
deceased Jayshree.
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::
3 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
(ii) The respondents were residing at Bramha. At the time of
settlement of marriage, respondent no. 1 agreed that after marriage, he
will stay with his wife Jayshree at Ansing by making arrangement of
room.
(iii) After solemnizing marriage, Jayshree went to cohabit with her
husband/respondent no. 1 at Village Bramha on such promise and
assurance given by her husband to reside at Ansing after getting room.
Respondent no. 1 not made any arrangement of residence at Ansing. All
the respondents gave good treatment to her for 1½ years. Jayshree
begotten one female child. Thereafter respondents started ill-treating to
deceased. They were directing her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her
parents to purchase plot at Ansing.
(iv) In the year 2005, brother of Jayshree, namely, Shivraj had been
to the house of the respondents at Bramha for Rakshabandhan. In his
presence, respondent no. 1 beat deceased Jayshree. On 16-4-2006,
father of deceased had been to Village Rohada for a marriage. After
marriage, he went to Village Bramha. Deceased disclosed him about the
harassment of her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. She told
that she was beaten by her husband. She disclosed that as he was not
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::
4 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
paying Rs. 50,000/- to purchase plot, therefore, her in-laws were
harassing her. He tried to convince father-in-law and mother-in-law and
husband of Jayshree. They were not in a mood to hear him. They asked
him to take Jayshree with him. So he took his daughter at Jintur.
Jayshree resided with her parents for 2½ months.
(v) On 21-6-2006, husband of Jayshree telephoned her and told her
that she should come with her paternal aunt, namely, Laxmibai. He told
her that if she fail to come for cohabitation, he would commit suicide.
On 23-6-2006, Jayshree came for cohabitation along with Laxmibai. On
25-6-2006, Jayshree committed suicide. Information was given to her
parents. Father-in-law of deceased informed the police about the death
of deceased.
(vi) Father of deceased, P.W. 1 came to Village Bramha. He lodged
report at Police Station, Ansing (Exhibit 50). Crime was registered. PSI
Avghade, P.W. 9 investigated the crime. He prepared spot panchanama,
inquest panchanama etc. and sent dead body for post mortem. As per
the opinion of the Medical Officer, cause of death was due to hanging.
After complete investigation, P.W. 9 filed the charge-sheet before the
Judicial Magistrate First First Class, Washim, who in turn committed to
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::
5 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
the Court of Sessions, Washim for trial.
(vii) Charge was framed at Exhibit 33. Same was readover and
explained to the accused/respondents. They pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Defence appears to be of total denial.
(viii) Learned trial Court recorded statements of accused under Section
313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the prosecution
and defence, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused/respondents
as stated above, hence, the present appeal.
3. Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J. Y.
Ghurde for the State/appellant. He has submitted that evidence of
P.W. 1, father of deceased is well supported by P.W. 2 Shivraj Dukandar,
sister of deceased Savita (P.W. 3) and independent witness Aasra.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that there is
sufficient evidence by the prosecution to prove the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. There is no
dispute that deceased died within a period 7 years from the time of
marriage. Death of Jayshree was unnatural. P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and
P.W. 4 have stated about ill-treatment by the respondents. Learned trial
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:43 :::
6 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
Court not considered evidence properly and wrongly acquitted the
respondents. At last, he prayed to allow the appeal and convict the
respondents for the offences charged against them.
4. Heard learned counsel Shri Daga for the respondents. He
has pointed out material evidence. Learned counsel has submitted that
deceased Jayshree was hot tempered. It was decided before marriage
that her husband should reside at Ansing along with deceased. Being a
only son, he could not reside at Ansing. Deceased was upset and
therefore, she has committed suicide. There was no any ill-treatment or
harassment as alleged against the respondents. Learned trial Court
rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted all the
respondents. There is no merit in the appeal, hence, liable to be
dismissed.
5. Evidence of P.W. 1 itself shows that before marriage of
Jayshree, her husband respondent no. 1 agreed to reside at Ansing along
with his daughter by making arrangement of room. His evidence and
also evidence of other witnesses do not show that there was any demand
of dowry at the time of settlement of marriage. From the perusal of
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
7 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, it is clear that deceased
had no grievance against any of the respondents for a period of
1½ years. Deceased delivered a female child. Admittedly, her sister-in-
laws were married and residing with their respective husbands. P.W. 1
and P.W. 2 not stated anything against accused nos. 4 and 5. General
allegations are made against father-in-law and mother-in-law saying
that they were instigating respondent no. 1 to beat deceased etc.
6. As per the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, deceased was
taken by P.W. 1 on 16-4-2006. She resided with them for about 2½
months. Respondent no. 1 was insisting his wife Jayshree to return to
matrimonial home. On 21-6-2006, respondent no. 1 made a phone call
and requested Jayshree to return with Laxmibai (paternal aunt of
deceased). Deceased returned to Village Bramha on 23-6-2006 and
thereafter she has committed suicide on 25-6-2006. Exact reason for
committing suicide not disclosed, but from overall evidence on record, it
is clear that deceased was insisting her husband to reside at Ansing.
Respondent no. 1 being the only son of his parents, he wanted to
continue to reside at Bramha instead of Ansing. Respondent no. 1 was
in service at Ansing. He was working as a Clerk in Maulana Aazad
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
8 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
School at Ansing. It was natural for the only son/respondent no. 1 to
look after his old aged parents. His both sisters/respondent nos. 4 and 5
were married and residing with their respective husbands. Therefore,
expectation of parents from their only son to take care of them in their
old age cannot be said to be cruelty.
7. For the first time, after the death of Jayshree, story put
forth by P.W. 1 in respect of demand of Rs. 50,000/- to purchase a plot.
It is pertinent to note that real sister of P.W. 1 was residing at Bramha.
If there was any such cruelty or harassment on account of demand of
Rs. 50,000/-, then it was natural for the parents of deceased to call a
meeting of their relatives.
8. It appears from the evidence that there was some bickering
only on the ground that the respondent no. 1 was not taking deceased to
Ansing and reside only with her.
9. There is no dispute that lastly, deceased return to
matrimonial home at Bramha along with her paternal aunt Laxmibai.
Laxmibai not examined by the prosecution. P.W. 9 PSI Avghade has
admitted in his cross-examination that he had recorded statement of
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
9 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
Laxmibai Vaijnathappa Isapure and her son Mahadeo Isapure, resident
of Bramha. Both the statements not filed on record. Both witnesses also
not examined by the prosecution.
10. PSI Avghade has specifically admitted in his cross-
examination that both these witnesses, namely, Laxmibai and her son
Mahadeo not shown any knowledge about the harassment to Jayshree.
Evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 also not material. P.W. 4 Aasra Ghuge
denied portion marked ‘A’ of her statement. It is proved by PSI Avghade.
In her statement before police stated that there was ill-treatment to
deceased from her parents side.
11. There is no evidence to show that there was demand of
dowry by the respondent no. 1. This allegation stated by father and
relatives of deceased after her death. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have not stated
in their evidence that they asked husband of deceased in respect of
demand. Moreover, real sister of P.W. 1 was residing at Bramha with
her family. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 not stated a single word that Laxmibai
disclosed anything about the harassment of deceased in respect of
demand of Rs. 50,000/-. Being a real sister, it was natural conduct of
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
10 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
Laxmibai to disclose to her brother about the harassment of deceased,
but P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 not stated so. On the other hand,
evidence of PSI Avghade clearly shows that Laxmibai and her son not
disclosed anything about the harassment to deceased by any of the
respondents. Therefore, it is clear that allegations in respect of demand
of Rs. 50,000/- introduced after death of Jayshree.
12. P.W. 2 admitted both the letters written by deceased.
Those letters are at Exhibit 54 and 55. In both the letters, deceased
not made any allegation. One letter was addressed to P.W. 1. In the
said letter, deceased not shown any harassment to her. Another letter,
Exhibit 55 was addressed to respondent no. 1 by Jayshree from her
parents house. From reading of letter, Exhibit 55, it appears that she
was in deep love with respondent no. 1. Below her signature, she wrote
as hot tempered wife. Admission of P.W. 1 in the cross-examination
itself shows that deceased was hot tempered.
13. There may be some trivial quarrels on household work.
That does not mean that there was cruelty to deceased. In the case of
Shivaji Janaba Patil and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
11 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
2004(1) Mh.L.J. 411, it is held by this Court that every petty bickering
or disagreement cannot be treated to be “cruelty”. There has to be a
nexus between such harassment, ill-treatment, cruelty and the death. It
is further held in paragraph 11 of said judgment as under.
11. For bringing home the guilt in context with Section
498A or 304B of Indian Penal Code there has to be a specific
evidence to show that the bride was harassed, illtreated,
treated with cruelty on number of occasions which was
sufficient enough to prompt her to commit suicide. The Court
cannot afford itself to be aloof or noninformative of normal
human behaviour and humanly transactions which are being
transacted in day to day routine life. There are petty quarrels
or brushings or conflicts on number of counts in day to day
life between a bride, her in-laws, her husband, the sisters or
the brothers of the husband. Every such petty bickering or
disagreement cannot be treated to be “cruelty” in parlance of
law in respect of Sections 498A, 304 B of Indian Penal Code.
If they are to be taken into the sweep of the provisions of these
two sections, then, it would be very difficult for the persons to
survive in normal domestic life. Cruelty should be to such an
extent which would make the bride fade up and to abandon
the matrimonial life by committing suicide. The harassment,
illtreatment or cruelty should be of such an extent which
would make her disinterested in living in matrimonial tie or
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
12 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
in matrimonial home and that would be sufficient enough to
prompt her to commit suicide. There has to be a nexus
between such harassment, illtreatment, cruelty and the death.
14. In the present case, except the one incident stated by P.W. 2
that respondent no. 1 beat Jayshree, no other incident is stated by any of
the witness in respect of beating etc. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 only stated that
when Jayshree came to her parents house, she disclosed about the ill-
treatment of respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. P.W. 1 also not disclosed any
harassment or ill-treatment by the sister-in-laws of deceased even
though they are made accused.
15. From the perusal of evidence, it is clear that prosecution has
suppressed the material evidence from the Court. As per admission of
PSI Avghade, he had recorded statements of Laxmibai and her son
Mahadeo who were residing at Village Bramha. Admittedly, Laxmibai is
real sister of P.W. 1. She would have disclosed before the Court real fact
but prosecution not examined Laxmibai or her son. Moreover, PSI
Avghade has stated in his evidence that Laxmibai and her son not
disclosed anything about harassment or ill-treatment to deceased by all
the accused.
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
13 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
16. Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused
persons were demanding Rs. 50,000/- and on that count beating and ill-
treating deceased. The real fact disclosed by P.W. 1 himself in his
examination-in-chief. He has stated that there was an agreement before
the marriage of Jayshree. At the time of settlement of marriage,
respondent no. 1 agreed to reside with his wife separately at Ansing.
Admittedly, respondent no. 1 not taken Jayshree to Ansing. Jayshree
was residing in joint family, therefore, her expectation to reside
separately with her husband not fulfilled.
17. As per the admission of P.W. 1 and letter, Exhibit 55, it is
clear that deceased was hot tempered. Possibility cannot be ruled out
that deceased might have committed suicide because her husband not
taken her to Ansing as per assurance given by him at the time of
settlement of marriage. Prosecution has not proved any of the
ingredients of Section 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned trial Court rightly considered all the evidence. There is no
illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence, we pass the
following order.
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::
14 jg.apeal.203.07.odt
ORDER
(i) The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ii) R P be sent back to the trial Court.
JUDGE JUDGE
wasnik
::: Uploaded on – 15/03/2018 16/03/2018 01:50:44 :::