IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.965 OF 2001
The State of Maharashtra .Appellant
Vs.
1. Vilas Bhagawan Chavan, Age : 27 yrs. .Respondents
2. Satish Bhagawan Chavan, Age : 22 yrs.
3. Radhubai Bhagawan Chavan, Age : 45 yrs.
4. Kum. Kavita Bhagawan Chavan, Age : 18 yrs.
All R/o. Surli, Taluka – Karad, District – Satara
Mr.Y.M.Nakhwa, APP, for the Appellant – State
None for the Respondents
CORAM : REVATI MOHITE DERE , J.
DATE : 08.05.2017
ORAL JUDGMENT
. By this Appeal, the Appellant – State of Maharashtra
has impugned the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2001 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karad in Sessions Case
No.112 of 2000 acquitting the Respondent – accused of the
offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A, 323 504
r/w.34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. A few facts as are necessary are stated as under :-
1 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .docThe deceased – Surekha was married to Respondent
No.1 – Vilas Chavan on 08.03.1996. Initially, for about eight days
after marriage, Surekha was treated well. Thereafter, according
to Surekha, the Respondents were not behaving properly with
her. She has stated that Respondent No.1 would abuse and
assault her with fist and kick blows; that the Respondent No.2 –
Satish, her brother-in-law was trying to get intimate with her and
would leave no opportunity to do the same; that the Respondent
No.3 – Radhubai would abuse and assault her and would state
that she did not know cooking, was not behaving properly and
would starve her; and that the Respondent No.4 – Kavita, who
was 18 at the relevant time, would also abuse and assault her.
She has stated that being fed up with the ill-treatment, on
31.05.1996 at 12.00 noon, when nobody was in the house, she
consumed some poisonous substance, as a result of which she
started vomiting and became unconscious. She has stated that
she was admitted by the Respondent – accused in Krishna
Charitable Hospital, Karad. She has stated that she regained
consciousness, pursuant to which her statement dated
(10.06.1996) was recorded. On 24.06.1996, Surekha expired,
pursuant to which her statement dated 10.06.1996 was treated
as an FIR, and accordingly, C.R.No.93 of 1996 was registered, on
24.06.1996 as against the Respondent – accused. The offences
2 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
alleged were Sections 306, 498A, 323 504 r/w.34 of the Indian
Penal Code. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the
Court of the learned Magistrate. As Section 306 was triable by
the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions. Charge was framed on 24.04.2001. The Respondent –
accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence
was of total denial and false implication.
3. The prosecution in support of its case examined five
witnesses; PW.1 – Anandrao Bajirao Jadhav, father of the
deceased; PW.2 – Dr. Mohan Yeshwant Patil, the Dr. who
performed the post mortem; PW.3 – Ishwar Sangappa Sutar, the
officer who investigated the case; PW.4 – Mahadeo Annarao Patil,
who recorded the statement of Surekha and PW.5 – Dr. Mrs.
Navina Brid, in whose presence Surekha’s statement dated
10.06.1996 was recorded. The learned Sessions Judge after
considering the evidence on record was pleased to acquit the
Respondent – accused of all the offences with which they were
charged. The Respondent – accused in support of their defence
examined DW.1 – Vasant Kashinath Jadhav, a Mediator, who
had settled the marriage and the dispute after marriage.
3 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
4. Perused the papers, the evidence on record and the
impugned Judgment and Order.
5. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the
Respondent – accused of all the offences/charges, as the
prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The learned Sessions Judge has observed that PW.1 – Anandrao
Jadhav had infact supported the defence, in his
cross-examination. He further observed that PW.1 had admitted
in his cross-examination, that the entire hospital expenses were
borne by the Respondent – accused, even after she had regained
consciousness; that during his stay at the hospital with his
daughter, he had not made any complaint as against the
Respondent – accused, about the alleged ill-treatment meted out
to her; and that the deceased was in the hospital for 24 days,
and as such, he had ample opportunity to lodge a complaint. As
far as PW.4 – Mahadeo Patil and PW.5 – Dr. Mrs. Navina Brid are
concerned, the learned Sessions Judge has disbelieved their
testimony, in view of the several lacunae in their evidence. The
learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of the defence
witness DW.1 – Vasant Jadhav.
4 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
6. After considering the evidence on record, the learned
Sessions Judge observed that the prosecution had failed to
prove, that Surekha was subjected to cruelty by the Respondent
– accused, resulting in her committing suicide.
7. The evidence of PW.1 – Anandrao Jadhav, father of
the deceased – Surekha shows that all the Respondent – accused
were residing together. PW.1 – Anandrao has stated that after
the marriage of Surekha with the Respondent No.1 – Vilas
Chavan on 08.03.1996, Surekha went to reside in her
matrimonial house at village Surli. He has stated that after
marriage, his daughter, Respondent No.1 and his maternal
brother had come to their house for the Solava ceremony on
19.03.1996. He has stated that Surekha resided with them for
six days. According to PW.1 – Anandrao, Surekha had disclosed
to him, that all the Respondent – accused were harassing her,
ill-treating her and were not giving her food. He has stated that
he convinced Surekha’s in-laws and told them that they should
take care of her. He has stated that on 26.05.1996, his son
brought Surekha to their house when she stayed with them for
four days. She has stated that Surekha had disclosed that the
Respondent – accused were saying that she could not cook and
were harassing her on account of the same. He has stated that he
5 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
had asked Surekha’s father-in-law to let Surekha stay with them
for two months, during which time, they could teach her cooking,
however, Surekha’s father-in-law asked him, to send Surekha
back and stated that they would not complain against her. He has
stated that in the month of June, 1996, he learnt that his
daughter – Surekha was admitted to the Krishna Charitable
Hospital, Karad, pursuant to which, he came to the hospital. He
has stated that Surekha was admitted in the I.C.U. and she had
been accompanied by her father-in-law. He has stated that
Surekha was unconscious and regained consciousness after
seven days. He has further stated that when Surekha regained
consciousness, she disclosed to him, that the Respondent –
accused were harassing her and as she could not bear the same,
she consumed insecticide.
8. In the cross-examination, PW.1 – Anandrao Jadhav
has admitted, that one Vasant Jadhav (DW.1) was the Mediator,
who had settled the marriage of Surekha with Respondent No.1 –
Vilas Chavan. He has stated that he did not ask about the
educational qualification of the Respondent No.1 – Vilas Chavan
and only asked whether the Respondent No.1 – Vilas Chavan
owned landed property or not. He has stated that he learnt that
the Respondent No.1, owned 4 – 5 acres of land. He has admitted
6 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
that village Surli comes under the famine affected area. He has
further admitted that when he spoke to Respondent No.1 – Vilas
Chavan, he realised, that he had some defect in his speech. He
has also admitted that he had learnt, that because of the said
defect in speech, Respondent No.1’s marriage could not be fixed
earlier. The said witness has further admitted that his daughter –
Surekha was fluent in her speech as well as in her behaviour and
that she was a perfect cook and that it was her first proposal. He
has also admitted that he had brought to the notice of his
daughter – Surekha, Respondent No.1’s speech problem. He has
further admitted that his financial position was average; and
that the marriage was performed in a healthy atmosphere. He
has stated that soon after marriage, Surekha visited them a
couple of times. He has further admitted that Vasant Jadhav
(DW.1) from village Kharade had accompanied Surekha’s
father-in-law, when he had come to take Surekha back home.
There is an omission with regard to the allegation that
Respondent – accused were stating that Surekha did not know
cooking. He has further admitted in his cross-examination, that
he had visited Krishna Charitable Hospital on the same day,
when Surekha was admitted in the hospital. He has admitted
that during his six days stay at the hospital, he had not spent a
single penny on his daughter’s medicines; that he had not lodged
7 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
any complaint during his six day stay, at the hospital alleging
ill-treatment to his daughter – Surekha, at the hands of
Respondent – accused, despite the fact, that the police had
enquired with him. He has further stated that after Surekha’s
statement was recorded, he went back to the village and that he
learnt that Surekha had expired on 24.06.1996. PW.1 –
Anandrao Jadhav has admitted that he had not spent any money
on his daughter even after she regained consciousness, and that
the entire expenses were borne by the Respondent – accused;
and that the Respondent – accused had paid all the hospital
charges. The said witness has, however, denied the suggestion
that his daughter disliked her husband i. e. Respondent No.1 –
Vilas Chavan and she was not ready to cohabit with him, because
of his speech problem. The said witness has admitted that there
were exchange of words, between himself and his daughter.
9. The evidence of PW.2 – Dr. Mohan Patil shows that
the deceased died due to multiple organ failure due to
consumption of poison. The viscera report has not been placed on
record.
10. PW.3 – Ishwar Sutar was attached to the Taluka
Police Station at the relevant time. He has conducted the
8 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
investigation in the said case.
11. PW.4 – Mahadeo Patil is the officer, who was attached
to the Krishna Charitable Hospital at the relevant time. He has
stated that Surekha was admitted in the said hospital on account
of poisoning and that he was intimated by the ward authority to
record her statement. He has stated that later on, he recorded
Surekha’s statement as per her say, obtained her thumb
impression and obtained the signature of the Doctor.
12. In his cross-examination, the said witness has stated
that for the first time, he had recorded the dying declaration of
Surekha. He has stated that he did not know how long the patient
was in the hospital prior to recording of her statement. He has
stated that he asked questions to the patient and she replied. He
has admitted that he was not aware of the questions, which he
had put to the patient; and that he had not asked Surekha when
she was admitted in the hospital. He has also admitted that
Surekha had not disclosed the date when she had consumed
poison. He has admitted that saline was administered to
Surekha, at the relevant time and that the patient was not
talking when saline was applied to her. He has also admitted that
he had not recorded the time when the statement was recorded.
9 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
He has also admitted that he had not requested the police station,
to requisition a Special Executive Magistrate for recording
Surekha’s dying declaration. He has denied the suggestion, that
he had prepared the statement after consulting Surekha’s father
and other relatives.
13. PW.5 – Dr. Mrs. Navina Brid, was the Medical officer
attached to the Krishna Charitable Hospital, at the relevant time.
She has only stated that Surekha was conscious but was anxious,
when her statement was recorded. She has admitted that she
was present when the statement was recorded and that she had
signed on the said statement, that Surekha was conscious.
14. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that
Surekha was unconscious for fifteen days. The said witness has
admitted that Surekha was being administered I.V., at the
relevant time. She has also admitted that they had not informed
the police that Surekha was conscious on 3rd, 4th 7th June,
1996. She has also admitted that she had not mentioned in the
case papers, that Surekha was conscious on the said dates. She
has further stated that some of the entries made in the case
papers do not bear her signature and that the entries are in the
hand writing of other doctors. She has admitted that she has
10 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
written on the statement that the patient was conscious, but her
pupils were dilated on account of Atropine. She has stated that
the patient was treated by Psychiatrist – Dr. Kulkarni. She has
admitted that since the time of admission, I.V. was continuously
administered to Surekha. She has admitted that Surekha was
examined by a Psychiatrist and that the Psychiatrist in his
observation has mentioned, that the patient was extremely
agitated and had persecutory delusions.
15. The evidence of DW.1 – Vasant Jadhav shows that he
had settled the marriage of Surekha and Respondent No.1 –
Vilas. He has stated that Surekha had disclosed that she did not
want to co-habit with Respondent No.1, as he was a simpleton. He
has stated that when Surekha’s father PW.1 – Anandrao heard
this, he told her that he would not maintain her and that she had
to go to her husband’s house. According to DW.1 – Vasant,
Anandrao (PW.1) had sent Surekha to her matrimonial house
with his son Surli, eight days prior to the incident.
16. As the evidence on record, in particular, the dying
declaration of the deceased did not inspire confidence, the
learned trial Judge rejected the said evidence and acquitted the
Respondent – accused. The medical evidence shows that Surekha
11 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:35 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
was admitted to the hospital on 31.05.1996; that her statement
came to be recorded on 10.06.1996; and that she expired on
24.06.1996. PW.5 – Dr. Mrs. Navina Brid states that she was not
the only doctor, who had examined the deceased and that there
were other doctors, who had examined Surekha. The said
witness has also admitted that she had not mentioned in the case
paper that Surekha was conscious on 3rd, 4th 7th June, 1996.
Admittedly, Surekha was being treated by Psychiatrist, who has
also not been examined by the prosecution. The evidence of PW.5
– Dr. Mrs. Navina Brid shows, that Surekha had persecutory
delusions. PW.4 – Mahadeo Patil’s evidence also does not inspire
confidence. His evidence does not show that, the patient was in a
proper frame of mind, when he recorded the statement. The said
witness has also admitted that he had not taken any steps to
requisition a Special Executive Magistrate, to record Surekha’s
statement. The evidence of the witnesses does not inspire
confidence in view of several lacunae in their evidence. The
evidence on record also shows that none of the Respondent –
accused were present in the house, when Surekha committed
suicide.
17. The overall reasons given by the learned Sessions
Judge for acquitting the Respondent – accused, cannot be faulted
12 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:36 :::
APPEAL 965-2001 .doc
or be said to be perverse or unsustainable. The same are borne
out by the material on record.
18. Considering the aforesaid, the Appeal, being sans
merit is dismissed.
(REVATI MOHITE DERE, J.)
13 of 13
::: Uploaded on – 12/05/2017 13/05/2017 00:28:36 :::