Anusaya Atmaram Beldar vs The State Of Maharashtra
2012 Latest Caselaw 335 Bom

                                            Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012
                                 1

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,




                                                                
                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD
                                  




                                        
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 529 OF 2012 with
            CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3674 OF 2012




                                       
     1]   Shantaram Atmaram Beldar, 
          Age 26 years, Occu. Agril., 

     2]   Atmaram Kanhaiya Beldar, 




                              
          Age 81 years, Occu. Agril., 

     3]
                   
          Anusaya Atmaram Beldar, 
          Age 61 years, Occu. Household, 
                  
          All R/o Shemalde, Tq. Muktainagar, 
          District Jalgaon. 
                                           ... APPELLANTS
                                      (Original Accused)
      


          VERSUS
   



     The State of Maharashtra
                                                  ... RESPONDENT

                            .....





     Shri G.V. Wani, Advocate for appellants
     Shri G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for respondent/ State
                            .....

                         
                        CORAM: 
                                 
                                 A.H. JOSHI AND
                                                





                                  U.D. SALVI, JJ.

                         
                        DATED:  
                                 
                                  5th November, 2012
                                                    


     JUDGMENT (Per U.D. Salvi, J.)

1. This is an appeal preferred against the

Judgment and order dated 20th July, 2012 passed by

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

learned Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case

No. 14/2011.

2. It was the case of the prosecution that

the appellants/ accused subjected deceased Sangita

wife of the appellant/ accused No. 1, and

daughter-in-law of the other appellants to

matrimonial cruelty and finally murdered her by

setting her on fire at the matrimonial home on

18/9/2010.

3. Sahebrao, brother of the deceased, who

claimed to be an eye witnesses of the incident,

lodged a complaint against the appellants/ accused

with local police station - Muktainagar Police

Station, Muktainagar, District Jalgaon at about

11.45 pm on 18th September, 2010. A crime was

registered against the appellants/ accused at

Crime No. 142/2010 under sections 302, 498-A read

with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at

Muktainagar Police Station. Sahebrao showed the

place of offence to the police. Partially burnt

plastic can, match box, match sticks, pieces of

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

burnt clothing, and broken bangles were collected

from the place of offence i.e. one of the of rooms

used as residence by the deceased and the

appellants/ accused. Statements of the witnesses

were recorded. Seized articles were sent to the

laboratory for further forensic investigation.

The appellants/ accused were arrested, clothes of

the deceased as well as the clothes found on the

person of the appellant/ accused No. 1 was seized.

On completion of the investigation the appellants/

accused were charge-sheeted. The case was

committed to the Court of Sessions thereafter in

course of time.

4. Learned Trial Court framed charges under

Sections 302, 498-A read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 against the appellants/ accused.

The appellants/ accused pleaded not guilty to the

charges. The prosecution examined eight witnesses

including the complainant-Sahebrao, relations of

the deceased, and panch witnesses. The accused

denied their involvement in the crime, and

examined neighbouring resident of the locality

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

where the crime had allegedly taken place in order

to place before the Court the defense version of

the incident.

5. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals

that learned Trial Court wholeheartedly believed

the ocular testimony of Sahebrao and dismissed the

defense version for the reason that it sounded un-

natural.

6. Learned Advocate Shri G.V. Wani for the

appellants/ accused submitted that the prosecution

version in comparison with the defense version

looked artificial and learned Trial Court ought to

have construed the defense version liberally while

appreciating the evidence. In all probabilities,

he argued that Sahebrao if he was to witness his

sister being burnt alive would not have hesitated

to intervene, and if the intervention was not

possible for any reason whatsoever he could have

raised hue and cry to summon the local residents

to his help. He pointed out from the testimony of

P.W.-1 Sahebrao that he not only did not intervene

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

or cause his entry in the place of offence to

rescue his sister but did not approach any one in

the locality in order to save his sister from

eminent death. Countering these submissions

learned A.P.P. rhetorically posed a question as to

why P.W.1 Sahebrao could have falsely testified

before the Court.

7.

Though the prosecution did not examine

the mortician, the postmortem examination (Exhibit

46) admittedly reveals that the deceased Sangita

died due to nuerogenic shock caused on account of

82% 3rd and 4th degree burns sustained by her. How

the deceased Sagita sustained these burn injuries

is the crucial question in the present case.

8. P.W.2 Vishwanath Munde R/o Isarkhed,

Taluka Nandura, District Buldhana deposed that he

had received a message from P.W.1 Sahebrao and on

learning about the death of Sangita he went to her

matrimonial home on 19/9/2010, where the police

had seized plastic can, burnt match sticks, match

box, partially burnt pieces of cloth and pieces of

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

bangles from the room next to the first room

therein. He further deposed that he saw body of

the deceased Sangita lying on Ota at the said

house premises, and the place smelt of kerosene.

His evidence read in conjunction with the C.A.

Report (Exhibit 59) leads one to believe that

kerosene was used to fuel the fire at the said

place.

9. We have two versions of incidence first

given by P.W.1 Sahebrao and another disclosed by

D.W. 1 Jawaharlal Koli. D.W.1 Koli deposed that

the appellants/ accused and deceased Sangita were

his neighbours at village Shemalda, Taluka

Muktainagar, District Jalgaon. This fact finds no

challenge in his cross-examination resorted to by

the prosecution, and therefore, this fact needs to

be accepted without any reservation. D.W.1

further deposed that the appellant/ accused No. 1

Shantaram was with him at the place where the idol

of Ganpati was installed. Reason adduced by him

for him to be at the place where the idol of

Ganpati was installed also finds no challenge in

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

his cross-examination. If that be so the presence

of the appellant/ accused No. 1 Shantaram at the

said place sounds plausible. D.W.-1 Koli added

that on hearing commotion he went to the house of

the accused when he found the door of the house

closed from inside and the smoke and smell

billowing out of the said house. He further

deposed that when he knocked the door the latch

opened from inside and the deceased Sangita came

out engulfed in flames and shouting for help, and

she fell on Ota where he extinguished the fire

with water. He further testified that at the

relevant time accused Atmaram was standing in

front of the house, and the appellant/ accused No.

3 Ansuyabai was in the lane with other women at

the time of occurrence. He further deposed he

narrated facts to the police. Except branding him

as a liar nothing much has been elicited by the

prosecution in his cross-examination.

10. Learned Trial Court found this version to

be un-natural for the reason that the appellants/

accused did not raise hue and cry to summon the

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

people for help. However, learned Trial Court

gave little thought to the fact that the door of

the house was latched from inside, and there was

already a commotion, which had drawn the witness

to the door in order to extend an helping hand to

save Sangita from the disaster. These facts in

fact explain why the accused did not raise hue and

cry to summon the people for help.

11. On the other hand, we have testimony of

P.W.1 Sahebrao, brother of the deceased Sangita.

According to him, he had been to his sister's

place around 8.30 pm on 18/9/2010 and had plans to

stay over night at her place. He deposed that he

found the door of the house closed from inside and

could see from the kitchen window in front of the

house near the entrance that his sister was being

abused by her in-laws, and the appellant/ accused

Atmaram holding his sister by hand and hair

Anusayabai sprinkling kerosene on Sangita and

appellant/ accused No. 1 Shantaram lighting a

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

matchstick and setting her on fire. He deposed

that having seen this incident, he immediately ran

to the place of his grand mother at Melsangave and

disclosed the incident to Subhash Beldar and

Yuvraj Koli, and rushed back and seen his sister

in a burnt condition in the Varandha of her house.

Curiously enough there is not a word in his

testimony that his sister ever resisted her

assailants, raised alarm or shouted for help. He

also remained silent in his examination-in-chief

that he raised hue and cry to summon the people to

his help. Though he changed his colour in the

cross-examination to say that he did raise hue and

cry to gather the people at the material time.

None from the locality particularly P.W. 6

Dnyneshwar Tayade corroborated P.W.1 Sahebrao on

this aspect.

12. In natural course the deceased Sangita

was bound to react to the assault on her person.

It appears that P.W.1 Sahebrao was given an

opportunity to say something about it. However,

P.W.1 Sahebrao preferred to remain silent on this

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

aspect by saying that he could not recollect what

is his sister was then doing, when she was being

abused by her in laws. If his revelations in the

cross-examination about the situation of a kitchen

window are to be compared and tried to be

reconciled with the revelations in the evidence of

P.W.-2 Mundhe a panch to the scene of offence

panchanama (Exhibit 32), it can be seen that the

P.W.-1 Sahebrao had peeped in through the kitchen

window situate near the entrance to the front room

in the said house and the incident had occurred in

the room next to it. It, therefore, raises a

question mark as to whether one could have had a

glance at the things happening in the room beyond

the front room. He further deposed in his cross-

examination that after the accused persons opened

the door and ran away, he did not cause his entry

in the house to rescue his sister and he went to

Melsangave within an hour. He added that he did

not get the police at the spot at the time he

returned from Melsangve and did not know who had

intimated the police.

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

13. As regards the alleged cruelty, the

evidence of P.W.1 Sadashiv-father of the deceased

Sangita and P.W.5 Lilabai is equally futile and

does not stand to reason. Learned Trial Court,

was in error to hold that eye witness account was

reliable enough to sustain conviction of the

appellants/ accused.

14.

As discussed above, the so called eye-

witness account of Sahebrao is laced with all the

attributes of artificiality and fails to win

confidence of prudent mind. The Appeal,

therefore, must succeed.

15. The appeal is allowed. Conviction of the

appellants/ accused of the offence punishable

under Section 498-A, 302 read with Section 34 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the consequent

sentences imposed on them are set aside. The

appellants/ accused are set at liberty unless

required in any other case. Fine amount, if any,

paid by the appellants/ accused be refunded.

Criminal Appeal No. 529.2012

16. Criminal Application No. 3674/2012 for

grant of bail pending the appeal stands disposed

off in view of disposal of the Criminal Appeal

itself.

(U.D. SALVI, J.)ig (A.H. JOSHI, J.)

SDM* November-2012/ Cri. 529.2012