SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Subhash Gopal Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra on 20 April, 2017

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.doc

72 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.doc

harassment 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 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 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