SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Sukanraj Miyachand Kothari vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 November, 2019

1/5 906 IA 1 of 2019 in appeal 1422 of 2019.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INITERIM APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1422 OF 2019

Muniyaben Sukanraj Kothari … Applicant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

ALONGWITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2019
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1423 OF 2019

Sukanraj Miyachand Kothari … Appellant

Versus

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

Ms. Priyanka K. Dubey for the Applicant/Appellant.
Mrs. M. R. Tidke, APP for the Respondent/State.

CORAM: P. N. DESHMUKH, J.

DATED : 6th NOVEMBER, 2019.
P.C:-

1. Both these applications are filed by the original accused

Nos. 2 and 4 respectively, who are in-laws of deceased-Indumati

Sonali Patil

::: Uploaded on – 08/11/2019 08/11/2019 21:01:16 :::
2/5 906 IA 1 of 2019 in appeal 1422 of 2019.doc

for suspension of sentence and for bail, having been convicted

by the learned Trial Court for the offence punishable under

Section 498A and Section306 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced

to suffer imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-

each. In default of payment of fine, to suffer Simple

Imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section

498A of Indian Penal Code. The applicants are further convicted

for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal

Code and are sentenced to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 5

years each and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of

payment of fine, to suffer Simple Imprisonment for one month.

Applicants have paid amount of fine on 24th October, 2019.

2. Since, both these applications are arising out of the

common judgment, both are considered and decided together.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that in

entire evidence, there are absolutely no allegations against

either of the applicants establishing their involvement to

provide ill treatment or physical or mental harassment to

Sonali Patil

::: Uploaded on – 08/11/2019 08/11/2019 21:01:16 :::
3/5 906 IA 1 of 2019 in appeal 1422 of 2019.doc

deceased and that in fact, there is sufficient evidence to show

that either of the applicants at no point of time have instigated

deceased Indukumari to commit suicide. It is further contended

that in fact from the evidence on record it is established that

deceased alongwith her husband was residing separately since

2007 and thus there is no reason for the applicant to ill-treat

her. It is therefore, contended that in the light of evidence as

aforesaid, applications be allowed.

4. Learned APP opposed the applications on the ground that

there is direct evidence establishing the applicant’s involvement

in the present crime and prayed that application be rejected.

5. Perusal of the evidence of P.W. 1, Complainant and

brother of deceased, both revealed that marriage of deceased

took place with original accused No.1 sometimes in the year

2000 and brother of deceased has admitted that after marriage

of his brother, who is original accused No.3, deceased was

residing with her husband separately, since 2007. Admittedly,

day of incident is 13th September, 2013, as such there appears

Sonali Patil

::: Uploaded on – 08/11/2019 08/11/2019 21:01:16 :::
4/5 906 IA 1 of 2019 in appeal 1422 of 2019.doc

much substance in the case of applicants that there is no

opportunity to applicants to cause harassment to deceased. In

the evidence of P.W. 7- Sameer, son of deceased, he has deposed

of the facts which took place on the day of incident and had

involved original accused No. 1 (Husband of deceased),

alleging to have indulged in fighting and quarreling with his

deceased mother in the bedroom and about deceased

committing suicide by hanging. As such, his evidence does not

establish applicant’s involvement in any manner. Even

otherwise, said witness has admitted that his statement was

never recorded by the police during the course of investigation.

6. Similarly, evidence of P.W. 2, who is second child of

deceased whose evidence prima facie appears to be of hearsay ,

and with regard to incident after commission of suicide, by her

mother, has deposed that as per her opinion her mother might

have committed suicide due to harassment provided to her by

her father. In view of above evidence, applications are liable to

be allowed. Hence, following order:-

ORDER

1. Applicants original accused No.2 Sukanraj Miyachand

Sonali Patil

::: Uploaded on – 08/11/2019 08/11/2019 21:01:16 :::
5/5 906 IA 1 of 2019 in appeal 1422 of 2019.doc

Kothari and original accused No. 4 Muniyaben Sukanraj

Kothari shall be released on bail on their executing P. R.

Bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- each with one surety each

in the like amount.

2. Applicants shall be released on cash bail of Rs.20,000/-

each and shall furnish surety within a period of 2 weeks

from today.

3. Applicants shall mark their presence with Nerul Police

Station quarterly on the first day of each such month,

pending appeal.

(P. N. DESHMUKH, J.)

Sonali Patil

::: Uploaded on – 08/11/2019 08/11/2019 21:01:16 :::

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