APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMNAL APPEAL NO.839 OF 1998
TUKARAM CHANGDEO KANADE )…APPELLANT
V/s.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA )…RESPONDENT
Ms.Nasreen Ayubui, Appointed Advocate for the Appellant.
Mr.S.V.Gavand, APP for the Respondent – State.
CORAM : A. M. BADAR, J.
DATE : 20th JANUARY 2018
JUDGMENT :
1 By this appeal, the appellant/accused is challenging
the judgment and order dated 28 th September 1991 passed by the
learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case
No.319 of 1994, thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
He is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment of 2 years apart
from directing him to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to
undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Rest of the
avk 1/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
three accused persons were acquitted by the learned trial court by
the said judgment and order.
2 Briefly stated, it is case of the prosecution that on 24 th
April 1993, Meera Kisan Illay, resident of Talegaon, Taluka
Sangamner, District Ahmednagar, married appellant/accused
Tukaram Kanade. It was an arranged marriage, which was
solemnized with consent of the bride as well as the bridegroom.
The appellant/accused, at the time of his marriage, was serving in
Telco Company, and was residing at Lonikand, Pune. After one
month of her marriage, Meera started cohabiting with
appellant/accused Tukaram Kanade at Lonikand, Pune. Co-
accused who are parents and relatives of the appellant/accused
were also residing with him. It is case of the prosecution that
after her marriage, accused persons including the
appellant/accused used to coerce Meera to bring an amount of
Rs.20,000/- from her parents and on account of that demand, he
used to beat Meera. Mother-in-law of Meera was not providing
food to her and she was insisting Meera to do much more physical
avk 2/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
work. She was insulting and mentally torturing Meera. Father-in-
law of Meera used to abuse her on trivial things and used to
threaten her that if she fails to bring the amount of Rs.20,000/-
from her parents, she will be divorced. The prosecution further
alleged that sister-in-law of Meera also used to subject her to
cruelty. Meera used to disclose all these happenings in her
married life to her parents when she used to visit her parental
house from time to time. Ultimately, according to the prosecution,
Meera committed suicide on 14th June 1994. Report of her death
(Exhibit 25) on 15th June 1994 was given by her father PW2 Kisan
Illay to Sangamner Police Station. Then on 16th June1994, her
brother Sukhdeo lodged First Information Report (FIR) Exhibit 20
with Sangamner Police Station. As the alleged offence took place
within territorial jurisdiction of Haveli Police Station, Pune, the
said FIR along with papers of accidental death case were sent to
Haveli Police Station, where Crime No.148 of 1994 came to be
registered against the accused persons including the present
appellant/accused Tukaram Kanade.
avk 3/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
3 After completion of routine investigation, the
applicant/accused along with three co-accused was charge-
sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306
read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They were accordingly
charged. In order to bring home the guilt to the
appellant/accused, the prosecution has examined in all six
witnesses. PW1 Sukhdeo is the First Informant. He is brother of
deceased Meera Tukaram Kanade. Kisan Illay – father of deceased
Meera is examined as PW2. Dr.Shivaji Mahale, Autopsy Surgeon,
is examined as PW3. Exhibit 28 is report of postmortem
examination of dead body of Meera Kanade. Police Head
Constable Balkrushna Andbale, who recorded report of accidental
death case of deceased Meera is examined as PW4. Police
Constable Shivaji Joshi who had conducted part of the
investigation is examined as PW5. Investigating Officer Police Sub-
Inspector Hindurao Godse is examined as PW6. Defence of the
accused persons was that of total denial. They examined Heerabai
Kand, neighbour as DW1 and Dr.Nirmala Ganla as DW2.
avk 4/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
4 After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment
and order, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the
prosecution has failed to prove that death of Meera Kanade, which
occurred on 14th June 1994, was suicidal death, and therefore, all
accused persons were acquitted of the offence punishable under
Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also held
that the prosecution has failed to prove that accused nos.2 to 4,
who were in-laws and sister-in-law of deceased Meera, had
subjected her to cruelty. However, by the impugned judgment and
order, the learned trial court concluded that the evidence of the
prosecution is sufficient to prove that the present
appellant/accused Tukaram Kanade-husband subjected deceased
Meera to cruelty and accordingly, he is convicted of the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and is
sentenced as indicated in the opening paragraph of this judgment.
5 I have heard Ms.Nasreen Ayubi the learned advocate
appearing for the appellant/accused. By drawing my attention to
the definition of term “cruelty” as stated in explanation to Section
avk 5/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
498A of the Indian Penal Code, Ms.Nasreen Ayubi vehemently
argued that even if evidence of the prosecution is accepted as it is,
then also it fails to meet the standard required by explanation to
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the learned
trial court committed grave error in convicting the appellant/
accused of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code.
6 Shri Gavand, the learned APP, supported the impugned
judgment and order of conviction by relying on evidence of PW1
Sukhdeo and PW2 Kisan Illay.
7 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and
also perused the record and proceedings including the deposition
of witnesses and documentary evidence adduced by the
prosecution.
8 The learned trial court by the impugned judgment and
order has come to the conclusion that deceased Meera Kanade
avk 6/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
died because of Hepatitis-B on 14 th June 1994, and her death is
not suicidal. All accused persons are acquitted of the offence
punishable under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal
Code. Now let us examine whether the appellant/accused
Tukaram Kanade – husband of deceased Meera had subjected her
to cruelty during her matrimonial life of about 13 months.
Explanation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code defines
“cruelty” and it reads thus :
“Cruelty” means –
(a) any wilful 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
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.”
9 For establishing cruelty to deceased Meera, the
prosecution has relied on evidence of her near and dear ones
avk 7/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
namely, PW1 Sukhdeo – brother and PW2 Kisan Illay – father of
deceased Meera. There is no piece of disinterested evidence
coming on record from the side of prosecution to infer cruelty to
deceased Meera by her husband Tukaram Kanade. Therefore, let
us see what her brother and father are deposing in order to
ascertain whether the deceased was subjected to physical as well
as mental cruelty of requisite intensity and persistence in order to
bring home the guilt to the appellant/ accused for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It is well
settled that trivial instances and normal wear and tear of married
life do not amount to legal cruelty required for convicting the
accused for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code. PW1 Sukhdeo – brother of deceased Meera in
his evidence has stated that it was after one month of her
marriage, his sister Meera started cohabiting with the
appellant/accused by residing with him at Lonikand, Pune.
Accused nos.2 Changdeo Kanade and accused no.3 Godhabai
Kanade, who are parents of the appellant/accused Tukaram were
also residing with him. As per version of PW1 Sukhdeo, his sister
avk 8/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
Meera came to her parental house on four to five occasions and
during her visits, she disclosed to him that her husband and in-
laws are not treating her properly. PW1 Sukhdeo further deposed
that Meera disclosed to him that her husband and in-laws are
demanding an amount of Rs.20,000/-, so that her husband can get
a permanent job and they are harassing her for satisfying this
demand of Rs.20,000/-. Cross-examination of PW1 Sukhdeo
reveals that during initial period of six months of cohabitation of
Meera with the appellant/accused, there was no complaint of ill-
treatment. This witness candidly admitted that he himself had
visited house of the appellant/accused on five to six occasions and
on each occasion, he was treated properly.
10 This evidence coming on record from the mouth of
PW1 Sukhdeo, thus, goes to show that out of short married life of
13 months of deceased Meera, she had not resided with the
appellant/accused for one month, and for further six months,
everything was well in her matrimonial life. Thus, now one will
have to ascertain whether in remaining six months period of
avk 9/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
married life of deceased Meera, whether she was subjected to
cruelty by the appellant/accused.
11 During cross-examination of PW1 Sukhdeo, the
defence has got proved letters at Exhibits 21 and 23 written by
PW1 Sukhdeo to his brother-in-law i.e. the appellant/accused
Tukaram Kanade. From all these three letters, it is seen that the
relation between PW1 Sukhdeo and his brother-in-law i.e. the
appellant/accused Tukaram Kanade were very cordial. The fact
that during life time of his sister Meera, this witness PW1 Sukhdeo
got proper treatment by the appellant/accused on all occasions
when he visited the house of the appellant/accused goes to show
that married life of Meera was going on smoothly. PW1 Sukhdeo,
who appears to be working in the school and teacher by
profession has not explained what he meant by “harassment” by
the appellant/accused to his sister Meera. Merely using the word
“harassment” is not sufficient to infer cruel treatment to a married
woman as envisaged by explanation to Section 498A of the Indian
Penal Code. That apart, though as deposed by PW1 Sukhdeo
avk 10/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
narrations of Meera to him regarding treatment given to her by
the appellant/accused as well as her in-laws i.e. original accused
no.2 Changdeo Kanade and original accused no.3 Godhabai
Kanade were same, strangely enough, with the same evidence
against all these accused persons, the learned trial court has
chosen to acquit the in-laws of deceased Meera but convict the
appellant/accused.
12 PW2 Kisan Illay, who is father of deceased Meera, has
deposed that during her four to five visits to parental house, his
daughter Meera disclosed to him that her husband demanded
Rs.20,000/- for securing permanent employment and for that
purpose, harasses her. This witness further deposed that eleven
days prior to her death, Meera had been to his house and told him
that her husband and father-in-law had threatened her by uttering
not to return, if she failed to bring the amount of Rs.20,000/-.
Here also, evidence of PW2 Kisan is as vague as it can be to
establish cruelty to a married woman. Losing of normal frame of
mind is required for establishing legal cruelty. For that purpose,
avk 11/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
the prosecution is enjoined to establish how a married woman was
treated by either her husband or in-laws. Using the word
“harassment” is not sufficient to enable the court to infer the
treatment given by the husband or in-laws to a married woman.
13 To crown this all, the defence has examined Heerabai
Kand as defence witness No.1, who is neighbour of deceased
Meera and appellant/accused Tukaram Kanade. Evidence of DW1
Heerabai Kand shows that everything was going on smoothly in
the married life of Meera with the appellant/accused. This
witness has spoken about illness of deceased Meera and the fact
that the appellant/accused had provided medical treatment to her.
This is also reflected from evidence of DW2 Dr.Nirmala Ganla.
Deceased Meera was suffering from Hepatitis-B and she was
admitted to the hospital of this witness by her husband.
14 The net result of foregoing discussion reveals that the
prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant/accused by his
willful conduct has subjected deceased Meera to cruelty as
avk 12/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::
APPEAL-839-1998-J.doc
explained by explanation to Section 498A of the Indian Penal
Code. The learned trial court has failed to consider the matter in
proper perspective and ignored the requirement of law for
establishing the offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment and order of
convicting the appellant/accused, as such, cannot be sustained,
and therefore, the order :
ORDER
i) The appeal is allowed.
ii) The impugned judgment and order dated dated 28 th
September 1991 passed by the learned 9th Additional
Sessions Judge, Pune, in Sessions Case No.319 of 1994,
thereby convicting the appellant/accused for the offence
punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, is
quashed and set aside.
iii)The appellant/accused is acquitted of the offence punishable
under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. His bail
bonds stand cancelled.
iv)Fine amount, if any, imposed on the appellant/accused, and
paid by him, be refunded to him.
(A. M. BADAR, J.)
avk 13/13
::: Uploaded on – 20/01/2018 21/01/2018 02:10:06 :::