Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Sanjay Shesharao Suryawanshi on 22 December, 2014
Bench: S.S. Shinde
585.96crapl
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.585 OF 1996
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.336 OF 1996
The State of Maharashtra,
through P.S. Gangapur. ...APPELLANT.
v/s
1. Sanjay Sheshrao Suryawanshi,
age 23 yrs. Occu. Agril., r/o
Boruf, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Vijay Sheshrao Suryawanshi,
age 19 years, occu. Education,
r/o as above.
3. Sheshrao Madhavrao Suryawanshi,
age 50 years, occu. Agril., r/o as above.
4. Sakharabai @ Vimalbai w/o Sheshrao
Suryawanshi, age 45 years, occu.
Household, r/o as above. ...RESPONDENTS.
(Ori. Accused).
...
APP for Appellant / State : Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar.
Advocate for Respondents: Mr. N.S. Ghanekar.
...
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.336 OF 1996
Sanjay s/o Laxmanrao Borude,
age 25 years, occu. Teacher,
::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2014 23:47:01 :::
585.96crapl
2
r/o New Kawsan, Paithan,
District Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER.
v/s
1. Sanjay Sheshrao Suryawanshi,
age 23 yrs. Occu. Agril., r/o
Borudi, Tq. Gangapur,Dist. Aurangabad.
2. Vijay Sheshrao Suryawanshi,
age 19 years, occu. Education,
r/o as above.
3. Sheshrao Madhavrao Suryawanshi,
age 50 years, occu. Agril., r/o as above.
4. Sakharabai @ Vimalbai w/o Sheshrao
Suryawanshi, age 45 years, occu.
Household, r/o as above.
5. The State of Maharashtra. ...RESPONDENTS.
(Ori. Accused 1 to 4).
...
Advocate for petitioner: Mr.K.B. Chaudhari.
APP for Appellant / State : Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar.
Advocate for Respondents: Mr. N.S. Ghanekar.
...
CORAM : S.S. SHINDE & A.I.S. CHEEMA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12.12.2014.
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.12.2014.
JUDGMENT: [Per SHINDE, J]
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order of
585.96crapl
acquittal of the respondents / accused passed by the
learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions
Case No.312 of 1995 for the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r.w. 34 of IPC, the appellant
State has preferred this appeal; So also, the original
complaint has also preferred Criminal revision
application No.336/1996 challenging the judgment and
order of acquittal.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:
The accused No.1 Sanjay Sheshrao is the husband
of deceased Latabai. Accused No.2 Vijay is the brother of
accused No.1 and accused No.3 Sheshrao and accused
No.4 Sakharabai are the parents of accused No.1 and 2
and in-laws of deceased Lata. P.W.1 Sanjay Borude is
the brother of deceased Lata, P.W.2 Sumanbai is the
mother and P.W.3 Jagannath Borude is the uncle of the
deceased Latabai. All accused are residing at Borudi, Tq.
Gangapur, District Aurangabad. The marriage between
Lata and accused Sanjay took place on 30.3.1993 at
585.96crapl
Paithan. Dhanesh is the son of Lata and Sanjay.
3. Further case of prosecution is that good treatment
was given to Latabai for six months after the nuptial.
Accused Sanjay was not in service at that time. Accused
Sanjay came to the complainant P.W.1 Sanjay Borude at
Paithan and informed that he requires Rs.500/- for going
to interview at Deoolgaon Raja. Complainant gave
Rs.500/- in the month of June, 1993. Accused No.1
Sanjay did not get the service. In the month of October,
1993, Lata and accused Sanjay came at Paithan.
Accused Sanjay demanded gold ring of 3 gms. The father
of Lata gave him gold ring. After four days, complainant
received letter of accused No.1 Sanjay, in which, he
informed that he disposed of that gold ring and amount
was invested in Peerless company in the name of the
mother of Lata and again demanded Rs.2000/-. All
accused started giving ill-treatment to Lata and used to
tell that she was not doing the work properly. Accused
Sanjay and his mother used to assault her and used to
tell that she was not knowing field work. Accused Vijay
585.96crapl
also used to quarrel with her. There was harassment to
Latabai in the house of accused. Thereafter, after 15
days accused Sanjay again came to Paithan and mother
of Lata gave him Rs.1000/-. Accused Sanjay spent all
the amount. The mother of complainant and Lata gave
in all Rs.5000/- to accused Sanjay. Accused Sanjay did
not invest amount in the name of anybody in Peerless
company.
4. It is alleged that there was marriage of complainant
on 23.4.95. Accused Sanjay and Latabai came for the
espousal of the complainant. Accused Sanjay had taken
wrist watch of the complainant and did not return. Lata
used to come at Paithan for festivals. At that time, she
used to tell that accused used to assault her and were
not providing food to her. On the festival of
Nagpanchami of 1995, Lata was brought to Paithan by
her brother Bhagwan. At that time, Lata told her parents
and brothers that accused started constructing house
and accused demanded Rs.25,000/-, and gave threats if
the amount is not brought, accused No.1 will marry with
585.96crapl
other woman. It was told to Lata that there would be a
marriage of another sister Sangita and it is not possible
to satisfy the demand of the accused of Rs.25,000/-.
After 3-4 days after Nagpanchami accused No.1 Sanjay
came to Paithan and stayed for three days. He
demanded Rs.25000/-. As the amount was not given,
accused Sanjay became angry and left the house in
anger. Then on 18.8.95 accused No.1 Sanjay came at
Paithan by jeep. He went to Jaikwadi, because Lata was
there. He met uncle of Lata named Jagannath Borude
and demanded Rs.5000/-. Jagannath Borude did not
give the amount. Accused Sanjay told them not to send
Lata without money. Accused Sanjay did not take Lata
with him.
5. It is the case of the prosecution that on 22.8.95,
accused No.1 Sanjay went to Tandulwadi to the house of
aunt of Lata named Rahibai Idhate. He said to Rahibai
that parents and brothers of Lata were not willing to
send Lata to him and further said to Rahibai to send
Lata to him within 2 days. Rahibai went to the
585.96crapl
complainant and gave the said message. On 23.8.95
complainant, Lata, and Rahibai went upto Bidkin. The
maternal uncle of complainant Uttamrao joined them
and complainant, Lata and Uttamrao went to Borudi
village, to the house of accused. They all reached to
Borudi village in the evening by bullock-cart. All accused
were present in the house. After seeing them, accused
no.1 Sanjay left the house and did not return home
whole night. On the very night Uttamrao left the village
and started proceeding towards Bidkin by bullock-cart.
On the way, accused No.1 Sanjay met him and gave
abuses and said why Latabai was brought. When Lata
went to accused Sakharabai for bowing, accused
Sakharabai kicked her in the presence of complainant.
On next day, Lata told the complainant that accused
No.4 Sakharabai was not allowing her to do any work.
Complainant informed this fact to the uncle of accused
No.1 and it was told the complainant that the uncle will
satisfy the accused and complainant would not worry.
Leaving Lata at Borudi village, complainant went to
Savkheda and he narrated the incident to his maternal
585.96crapl
uncle. There is dispensary of accused No.3 at Savkheda
and he was there. The uncle and complainant went to
accused No.3 and narrated facts to him. Accused No.3
gave assurance not to worry. Thereafter, complainant
came to Aurangabad to the house of his cousin uncle
Sampat Idhate.
6.
Lastly, contention of prosecution is that on 25.8.95
another uncle of complainant Gangadharrao came to him
to the house of Sampat. He informed complainant and
others that Lata was admitted in Ghati hospital and
some medicine was administered to her. They all went to
Ghati hospital and noticed dead body of Lata. Dead body
of Lata was sent to Doctor for autopsy. Inquest
panchanama was drawn. Firstly, A.D. was registered
vide A.D. No.28/95 by City Chowk Police Station.
Thereafter dead body was taken to village of accused for
obsequies. The family members of complainant and
other relatives attended the obsequies. Then, they all
went to Paithan. On 28.8.95 complainant went with
others to Gangapur Police Station and lodged the
585.96crapl
complaint against the accused persons.
7. Investigation was done by PSI Aute. He went to
Borudi village and drew spot panchanama Exh.29. Three
poisonous bottles (Articles 1 to 3) were seized under said
panchanama. He recorded statements of witnesses.
Accused No.1 and 2 were arrested on 28.8.95. When
accused No.1 Sanjay was in police custody, he made
voluntary statement and memorandum to that effect was
drawn. Accused No.1 led Police and panchas to his
village. At the instance of accused No.1 Sanjay Thimat
box was recovered, which was seized under seizure
memo Exh.32. Accused No.3 and 4 were absconding.
They surrendered themselves before the court and then
they were released on bail. Firstly, charge-sheet was
filed against accused Sanjay and Vijay in the Court of
JMFC, Gangapur on 24.11.95. Then on 26.12.95
supplementary charge-sheet was filed.
8. The committal court perused the police case papers
and found that offence u/s 302 & 304-B of IPC
585.96crapl
exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, committed the
case to Court of Sessions.
9. The charge was framed at Exh.3 to which accused
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence
of accused No.1 was that he did not demand any amount
from the parents of Lata. It was an accidental death. The
defence of rest of the accused was that they never gave
abuses to Lata and never assaulted her. The amount
was not demanded. The specific defence was that on the
day of incident, Lata had gone in the field with accused
No.4 for sprinkling insecticide. At that time, it went in
her mouth. She was feeling giddy and she came at
home. There was vomiting. Accused No.3 was in his
dispensary. He was called. Froth was coming out from
mouth of Lata. He immediately, moved her to
Aurangabad. Doctor informed regarding death of Lata.
The further defence of the accused was that P.W.1
Sanjay came to the house of accused after 3-4 days after
the death of Lata and demanded Rs.15000/- and said if
the amount would not be given, he will file a case against
585.96crapl
them. A false case was filed against the accused
persons. In other words, the evidence adduced against
the accused was totally false.
10. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted
that the spot of the incident was the house of the
accused. They were bound to explain under which
circumstances death of deceased Latabai occurred. It is
submitted that the evidence of prosecution witnesses
unequivocally indicates that there was cruelty and ill-
treatment meted out to deceased on account of unlawful
demand and therefore, the impugned judgment and
order of the trial Court deserves to be set aside by
convicting the respondents / accused.
11. The learned Counsel for the respondents / accused
submitted that, the case of prosecution is based upon
evidence of 3 witnesses namely, P.W.l, Sanjay Borude,
P.W.2, Sumanbai Borude and P.W.3, Jagannath Borude.
He submits that the marriage of deceased Lata and
accused No.1 Sanjay was solemnized on 30.3.1993 at
585.96crapl
Paithan. They had one son Dhanesh born out of wedlock.
Date of incident is 25.8.1995. Lata died because of
poison. It is further submitted that, P.W.No.l Sanjay
Borude brother of Lata has stated in his evidence about
demand of Rs. 500/- which he gave on demand in June
1993, demand and acceptance of Gold Ring of 3 grams
which accused No.1 sold and invested money in the
name of mother of Lata in Peerless Company. Fact of
taking wrist watch at the time of marriage of p.w. no. 1
Sanjay and not returning back. These all are not having
any allegations of ill treatment or illegal demand. The
learned Counsel for respondents/accused submitted that
allegations of demand of Rs.25,000/- for construction of
house at the time of Nagpanchami of the year 1995 is
alleged. That P.W.No.1 alleges that after 3-4 days of
Nagpanchami accused No.1 Sanjay came and stayed for
3 days, and demanded Rs. 25,000/- and thereafter he
left in anger. That the evidence of demand of
Rs.25,000/- in the evidence of P.W. 2 Sumanbai is that
one day prior to Nagpanchami, Lata demanded Rs.
25,000/- from Bhagwan who is another brother of Lata
585.96crapl
and who is not examined. She has alleged that accused
No.1 came after 8 days and demanded amo4713unt. It is
alleged that, it was told to Lata to come with money
otherwise accused No.1 will marry another girl. These are
the two witnesses on the point of demand of Rs.
25,000/-. P.W.No.3 Jagannath uncle states that, he
received information of demand of. Rs. 25,000/- from
Laxmanrao who claimed that accused demanded Rs.
25,000/- from Laxmanrao. However, Laxmanrao father of
Lata is not examined and therefore, evidence of P.W.No.3
on the point of demand of Rs. 25,000/- is hearsay. Even
prosecution did not examine brother Bhagwan who
brought Lata at the time of Nagpanchami Festival of
1995 and to whom Lata told about demand of Rs.
25,000/-. It is further submitted that, the evidence
shows that Lata was in contact with her brother, parents
and uncle. It has come in the cross examination of
p.w.no.1 Sanjay that accused have their own house, they
have also their own land which is near to the house.
Earlier roof of the house of accused was of Tin and they
had renovated and laid slab on the roof and
585.96crapl
he also admitted that the work of Slab was completed in
May 1995. He also admits' that, in para No.10 that
financial position of accused Sheshrao is sound and
never borrowed any money. He admits that, accused no.1
was also doing profession of Medical Practitioner and no
complaints were made with Sarpanch, Police Patil,
Talathi or Police Station. If the work of Slab was
completed in May 1995 there would have been demand
for the same prior to May 1995 however, there are no
allegations of demand. P.W.NO. 1 in Para no.11 of his
cross examination sates that Lata did not disclosed
regarding construction prior to Nagpanchamai.
The learned Counsel for the respondents further
submitted that the second allegation on the point of
demand is that, accused no. 1 on 18.8.1995 demanded
Rs. 5000/- from P.W.No.3 Jagannath Borude uncle of
Lata who resides at Jaikwadi. P.W.No.3 Jagannath is not
stating as to what accused did to Lata for over demand of
Rs. 5000/- he only uses the word ill-treatment. Basic
585.96crapl
facts on the basis of which cruelty, ill-treatment can be
inferred are to be stated by the witness and whether that
amount to ill-treatment or cruelty is the inference which
should be drawn by the Court. P.W.No.3 alleges that,
accused Sanjay when came and informed that he
requires Rs. 5000/- as he is in financial crises. He states
that, accused told him that he is requiring Rs. 5000/- for
the time being. That he alleges that accused No.1 had
food with him and then left. P.W.No.3 doesn't say that
accused gave any threats of marring again with another
woman or any other threats. P.W. NO.3 also doesn't say
that he tried to convince accused No.1 not to ill-treat.
That, P.W. No.3 doesn't say that, he disclosed about this
incident to P.W.No1. Sanjay of P.W.No. 2 Sumanbai and
as such on the point of demand of Rs. 5,000/- there is
no other substantive evidence and as p.w.no.3 doesn't
claim to have disclose the incident to P.W.No.1 and 2
their evidence becomes hearsay. It is submitted that,
P.W.No.1 in his evidence in para in no. 5 states that, on
22.8.1995 accused no.1 Sanjay went to Tandulwadi to
the house of Aunt Rahibai Idhate and told that brother
585.96crapl
and parents of Lata are not willing to sent Lata and on
this point Rahibai Idhate was material witness however,
she is not examined and therefore this evidence becomes
hearsay.
It is further submitted that, p.w.no.l has stated in
para no.5 that on 23.8.1995 he along with Lata and
Rahibai and uncle Uttamrao Idhate left Lata at the house
of accused. It is alleged that on the next day Lata told
that mother in law was not allowing her to do any work
and therefore P.W.No.l Sanjay disclosed about incident to
uncle of accused no.l and also to accused no.3. That,
prosecution did not examine Rahibai or Uncle Uttamrao
Idhate and therefore there is no corroboration to the
evidence of P.W.NO.1 Sanjay.
He further submitted that, the P.W.No.l Sanjay in
cross examination admits that, when Lata was taken and
left at the house of accused she bow down to her in laws.
Hospitality was shown and tea was offered to them by
accused. They also took food at night in the house of
585.96crapl
accused and at that time food was prepared by Lata and
her mother in law. Lata slept at that night along with her
mother in law. Even on the next day lunch was offered,
this falsifies the story of incident of ill-treatment alleged
by P.W.No.l Sanjay. That, the incident was informed
immediately to relatives of Lata. They immediately came.
They were present when the panchnama was prepared
and dead body was handed over and last rites took place
at the village of Accused and subsequently it is only after
discussion in between themselves prosecution witnesses
decided to lodge report, there is delay of more than three
days in lodging report which is not explained and which
is fatal to prosecution. Delay in lodging the F.I.R. more
often than not, result in abolishment and exaggeration,
which is a creature of afterthought. A delayed report not
only get bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the
danger of introduction of coloured version, exaggerated
account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations, also creeps in casting a
serious doubt on its veracity. On this point defense is
relying upon authority of State of A.P. vs. M.
585.96crapl
Madhusudhan Rao.1 He submitted that, P.W.No.1
admits in para no. 12 that, they all family members sat
together and they had discussion and only after
discussion they decided to file complaint against
accused. That, the two letters Exh.18 and Exh.19 also
falsify the case of prosecution about ill-treatment over
demand of money. That, nature of accused no.1 can also
be gathered form letters that even one he disposed of the
Ring he invested the amount in the name of mother of
Lata. That mere demand doesn't amount to cruelty
unless and until cruelty is to fulfill the illegal demand.
There is no evidence that, Lata was subjected to cruelty
of personal nature to meet out illegal demands of
accused. It is further submitted that in order to draw
presumption u/s 113-B of Evidence Act prosecution is
required to prove that decease was subjected to cruelty
and that cruelty was soon before her death and there is a
nexus and proximity in between the demand and ill-
treatment and commission of suicide.
1 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 547 (S.C.);
585.96crapl
It is further submitted by learned Counsel for the
respondents / Accused that, learned trial court has
considered and appreciated the entire evidence in its
proper perspective and has acquitted the accused. There
is no illegality, perversity, committed by the trial court,
and therefore, the judgment of acquittal doesn't required
interference. In case of acquittal, there is a double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him. Secondly
the accused having secured an acquittal, the
presumption of his innocence is certainly not weakened
but reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court. Defense on the point has relied on the decision of
Supreme Court in a case of Nepal Singh vs. State of
Haryana.,2 That, defense has relied upon case of
Raman Kumar vs State of Punjab 3 on the point of 304-
B and presumption under 113-B of Indian Evidence Act.
That, learned Counsel for respondents / accused
2 AIR 2009 SC 2913;
3 (2009)16 SCC 35;
585.96crapl
has further relied upon the case of Ishwarilal Vs. State
of M.P.4 and Sakatar Singh and ors vs State of
Haryana,5. He submitted that in case of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or
indirect act of incitement of commission of suicide. The
mere fact that husband treated wife with cruelty is not
sufficient. It is submitted that, prosecution has not
made any case and therefore appeal filed by State against
judgment and order of acquittal deserves to be
dismissed.
12. We have heard learned APP for the appellant State
and learned Counsel for the respondents / accused at
length. With their able assistance, perused the original
record and proceedings and all other material placed on
record. In this case, charge assumes importance
inasmuch as, the trial Court did not frame charge for
offence punishable under section 306 of IPC. Following
charge was framed against the accused:
4 AIR 2007 SC 2457;
5 (2004) 11 SCC 291;
585.96crapl
" That you acc.no.1 being the husband of
deceased and other accused being relatives of
husband of deceased in furtherance of your
common intention since her marriage with
acc.no.1, subjected her to cruelty and harassment
on account of demand of money, gold ornaments
etc. and thereby committed an offence punishable
u/s 498.A r/w 34 IPC.
Secondly, you all accused on or about 24.8.95
at about 3.30 p.m. at village Borudi Tq. Gangapur,
in furtherance of your common intention,
intentionally and knowingly committed murder of
deceased Latabai w/o Sanjay by administering the
poison and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC.
You all accused in furtherance of your
common intention, being husband and relatives of
deceased subjected her to cruelty, harassment in
connection with demand of dowry and due to which
the death of the deceased is caused/occurred
otherwise than under normal circumstances within
seven years of her marriage and you all accused
thereby committed an offence punishable u/s 304-
B r/w 34 IPC."
585.96crapl
13. The case requires appreciation of evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, in the light of the provisions of
sections 302 r/w 34, 304-B r/w 34 and 498-A r/w 34 of
IPC, the provisions of sections 304-B and 498-A of IPC
are reproduced herein below:
"304B. Dowry death
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any
burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within seven years of
her marriage and it is shown that soon before her
death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment
by her husband or any relative of her husband for,
or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such
death shall be called "dowry death", and such
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused
her death.
Explanation- For the purpose of this sub-section,
"dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section
2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which shall
not be less than seven years but which may extend
to imprisonment for life."
The provisions of section 498-A of IPC read thus:
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the
husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
585.96crapl
cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.
Explanation- 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
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."
The provisions of Section 113B of the Evidence Act
read, thus:
"113B. Presumption as to dowry death. - When
the question is whether a person has committed the
dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon
before her death such woman has been subjected
by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court
shall presume that such person had caused the
dowry death.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this section,
"dowry death" shall have the same meaning as in
section 304B, of the Indian Penal Code, (45 of
1860)."
14. In order to appreciate definition of cruelty, it would
be necessary to look into the provisions of section 2 of
585.96crapl
the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The section 2 of the
said Act, reads thus:
"2. Definition of "dowry".-In this Act, "dowry" means
any property or valuable security given or agreed to
be given either directly or indirectly-
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other
party to the marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage
or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person; at or before
or any time after the marriage in connection
with the marriage of the said parties, but does
not include] dower or mahr in the case of
persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) applies.
Explanation I. --- [***]
Explanation II.-The expression "valuable
security" has the same meaning as in section
30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)."
15. In the light of above mentioned provisions, the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses will have to be
considered.
16. The prosecution has examined three witnesses in
order to prove the case in general and case of unlawful
585.96crapl
demand and cruelty in particular. As per the
prosecution case, there was demand of Rs.500/- by the
accused Sanjay. In order to prove the illegal / unlawful
demand of Rs.500/-, prosecution examined P.W.1 Sanjay
Laxmanrao Borude.
17. P.W.1 Sanjay Laxmanrao Borude is brother of
deceased Latabai. There is another sister to this witness
namely Sangeeta. P.W.1 Sanjay stated that the accused
gave good treatment to Lata for six months after
marriage. All accused were staying jointly at village
Borudi. At that time, accused Sanjay was not in service.
Accused Sanjay came to him and informed that he
required Rs.500/-. The said incident took place in the
month of June, 1993.
It is further stated that in the month of October,
93, his sister Lata and her husband Sanjay came to him
at Paithan. At that time, accused Sanjay demanded gold
ring of 3 gms. His father gave him gold ring. After four
days, this witness received a letter from accused No.1
585.96crapl
Sanjay informing that he disposed of that gold ring and
amount was invested in Peerless company in the name of
the mother of Lata and again demanded Rs.2000/-. The
letter was addressed to the father of the P.W.1. The said
letter was in the handwriting of accused Sanjay, which is
at Exh.8. It is further stated by this witness that
thereafter, accused No.1 Sanjay came to their house and
demanded Rs.1000/-. Accused Sanjay did not invest the
said amount in the name of anybody in Peerless
Company and no policy was taken.
This witness has further narrated the incident that
on 23rd April, 1995 there was marriage of P.W.1 Sanjay.
Accused Sanjay came for his marriage. He had taken
wrist watch of Richo Company from his hand. When
P.W.1 Sanjay demanded the wrist watch back, accused
No.1 Sanjay refused to give the said wrist watch back.
This witness further stated that his sister Lata used to
come at Paithan for festivals. At that time, she used to
tell that accused Vijay used to tell his mother
Sakharabai that Latabai was not doing field work and on
585.96crapl
his say, Sakharabai used to assault her and was not
providing food to her. It is further stated that for the
festival of Nagpanchami of 1995, Lata was brought to
Paithan. At that time, Lata told that accused started
constructing house and the same was not completed. For
its completion, there was need of Rs.25000/-. Her
husband accused No.1 and accused No.3 Sheshrao told
her to bring the amount from the family of P.W.1 Sanjay
otherwise, accused No.1 will marry with another woman.
It was told to Lata that there would be marriage of
another sister Sangita and it would not be possible for
them to satisfy demand of accused of Rs.25,000/-. It is
further stated by this witness that after 3 - 4 days of
Nagpanchami, accused No.1 Sanjay came to Paithan. He
stayed for three days. During those days, accused
Sanjay demanded Rs.25,000/- from them. They told him
that they were unable to satisfy his demand of money.
Accused No.1 Sanjay became angry and he left their
house in anger. Then again on 18 th August, 1995,
accused Sanjay came at Paithan by jeep. He went to
Jaikwadi to his uncle Jagannath Borude. He demanded
585.96crapl
Rs.5000/- to his uncle. His uncle did not give the
amount. At that time accused Sanjay told him whether
he gives more respect to amount than relations. Sanjay
further told uncle not to send Lata without money. It is
further stated by this witness that on 22 nd August, 1995
accused No.1 Sanjay went to Tandulwadi to the house of
his aunt Rahibai Idhate. He said to Rahibai that they
were not willing to send Lata to him and further said to
Rahibai to send Lata to him within 2 days. Rahibai went
to the P.W.1 and gave the said message. On 23.8.95
P.W.1, Lata, and Rahibai went upto Bidkin. The
maternal uncle of P.W.1 Uttamrao joined them and
P.W.1, Lata and Uttamrao went to Borudi village, to the
house of accused. However, admittedly, Rahibai is not
examined by the prosecution.
After P.W.1 Sanjay reached the house of the
accused, all accused were present in the house. After
seeing them, accused no.1 Sanjay left the house and did
not return home whole night. On the very night
Uttamrao left the village and started proceeding towards
585.96crapl
Bidkin by bullock-cart. On the way, accused No.1
Sanjay met him and gave abuses and said why Latabai
was brought. When Lata went to accused Sakharabai for
bowing, accused Sakharabai kicked her in the presence
of P.W.1. On next day, Lata told him that her mother-in-
law was not allowing her to do any work. The said
incident was narrated by P.W.1 to uncle of accused No.1.
He replied that he would satisfy the accused and P.W.1
should not worry. This witness has further stated that
he went to the dispensary of accused No.3 at Savkheda.
He narrated all incident to accused No.3. Accused No.3
also gave assurance not to worry. Then P.W.1 came to
Aurangabad.
This witness was cross-examined by the Advocate
of the accused. In his cross-examination, he has given
vital admissions which would nullify the prosecution
case. He has admitted in his cross-examination that he
went alone for the first three times to the house of
accused after marriage. He stayed there for a day. At
that time, Latabai did not make any complaint regarding
585.96crapl
ill-treatment. Latabai made complaint for the first time
at the time of Diwali of 1993. It is further admitted that
accused No.1 had come for diwali festival to their place
for the first time and he stayed with them for 2 - 4days.
At that time, this witness did not tell to accused No.1
anything about ill-treatment to Latabai. He admits that
there was no quarrel between then and accused persons.
The P.W.1 further stated in cross-examination that
he had gone to the house of accused even after
November, 1993. In the month of Feb. 95 he went to the
house of accused for giving intimation to them for
settlement of his marriage. Latabai was there at that
time. Thereafter, Latabai and accused No.1 Sanjay
attended his marriage at Chitegaon and also came to
Paithan and stayed for two days. P.W.1 Sanjay further
admitted that there was marriage of his cousin brother
Krishna at Lasur Station on 10.5.95 and at that time,
Lata came to then on 9.5.95. She came directly to
Jaikwadi. Accused Sanjay was also with her. After
marriage they both came to Paithan and stayed for two
585.96crapl
days. Then both went to their village.
This witness admitted in cross-examination that
the accused have their own house and land. He admits
to have seen the land, which is near their house. Roof of
house of accused was of tin. They removed those tins
and they wanted to erect slab on it. P.W.1 admits that in
the month of May, 1995 the work of slab was completed.
The work of stair-case was going on. This witness admits
that financial position of accused Sheshrao is sound. He
further admits that accused had not taken any amount
as Usanwar (loan) from them. He states that accused
No.1 was doing profession of medical practitioner. The
witness admits that no complaint was lodged to Police
Station or Police Patil prior to the incident in question.
He further admits that Nagpanchami had come in
the month of August, 1995 and Latabai did not tell
regarding construction of house prior to Nagpanchami.
He admits that accused No.3 Sheshrao had not come
personally to them for demand amount; as also, accused
585.96crapl
Sakharabai did not come to them at any time for
demanding the amount. The witness admits that
thereafter accused Sanjay had come to them and that, he
could not say for what purpose he had come. He states
that he did not know why accused Sanjay had come by
jeep to them. The witness admits that the talks between
accused No.1 and Jagannath Borude had not taken place
in his presence. The witness states that he does not
know whether there was any transaction between
Jagannath and accused persons. He admits that
accused No.1 came to them from house of Jagannath
Borude. P.W.1 admits that there was no quarrel between
him and accused No.1 at that time.
This witness further stated that Latabai bowed
down to in-laws immediately after reaching there,
hospitality was shown and tea was offered to them. They
took food at night in the house of accused. Lata and her
mother-in-law prepared food. He also admits that on
that night, Lata slept near hear mother-in-law i.e.
accused No.4. In the next day morning, lunch was
585.96crapl
offered to them. He stated that he alone went to the
dispensary of accused Sheshrao at Savkheda, there were
patients in the dispensary, accused gave him assurance
not to worry. The witness stated that there was suspicion
that accused might have administered poison to Lata. He
admits that there was Police Chowki at Ghati Hospital
and due to his mental condition he could not lodge
complaint there. The witness admits that confinement of
Lata took place at Paithan at their house and accused
Sanjay came many times to see Lata before and after
confinement. All accused came to see son of Lata at
Paithan.
The P.W.1 Sanjay admits that all family members
sat together and there was a discussion and they all
decided to file complaint against the accused persons
and he was informed to lodge complaint, for which he
consented.
18. The P.W.2 Sumanbai w/o Laxmanrao Borude is
mother of deceased Latabai. In her examination-in-chief,
585.96crapl
this witness stated that Latabai used to visit their house
often. She used to tell that accused used to give abuses
to her and were not giving good treatment to her.
Accused Sanjay wanted to go to Deoolgaon Raja for
interview and therefore he had taken Rs.500/- from her
son Sanjay. Thereafter, accused No.1 demanded ring.
They gave ring. Accused No.1 sent letter and informed
that he disposed of ring and invested amount in peerless
company. She further stated that he demanded
Rs.2000/-. Accused No.1 had taken Rs.1000/- from her
in the month of October. She further stated that he took
amount many times and in all she gave him Rs.5000/-.
P.W.2 Sumanbai stated further that Lata used to
come for Dipawali, Dasara, Nagpanchami and Holi. She
used to tell that accused were giving ill-treatment to her.
Her mother-in-law used to tell that Lata was not knowing
house work. They were not providing food to her. The
witness stated that Lata came one day prior to
Nagpanchanmi of 1995. Rs.25000/- were demanded
from Bhagwan. She told this fact to the witness. She
585.96crapl
further stated that the amount was demanded for
construction of house. It was told to her to come with
money otherwise not to come, and accused would see
other girl for Sanjay. After eight days, accused Sanjay
came and demanded amount. He stayed with them for 3
days at Paithan. They told him that they were unable to
satisfy the demands. He went in anger. Then on 18 th
accused Sanjay again came with jeep. Lata had gone to
Jaikwadi to the house of her uncle Jagannath. Accused
Sanjay went to him and demanded Rs.5000/-.
Jagannath refused to give the amount. After four days
Lata went to the house of accused. This witness stated
further that her son Sanjay also went with Lata. They
received message that Lata was admitted in hospital.
They all went there. Lata was no more.
During the cross-examination, the P.W.2 Sumanbai
stated that, she had not gone to house of the accused.
For the first time, Lata came after three days after her
marriage. She did not make any complaint against
accused persons at that time. Thereafter, she came after
585.96crapl
15 days or one month. At that time Lata made
complaint. Witness further admitted that Lata did not
make any complaint against accused persons. During
first six months, Lata came to them for three times. She
stated that accused Sanjay came to them for demanding
Rs.500/- after three months after marriage. After 8
months, accused Sanjay demanded ring. Her husband
had purchased that ring. The value of ring was
Rs.2000/- at that time.
She further stated that Lata used to come for
Nagpanchami festival each year. She stated that when
Lata came to them for confinement, accused Sanjay also
came with her. After the delivery, all accused came to
them for seeing the child. Accused Sanjay used to stay
with them at that time. When all accused came to see
child, they tried to convince them and requested not to
give trouble to Lata. Witness admitted that Lata had
passed SSC at the time of marriage and she studied at
the house of accused for HSC and gave exam at Paithan.
She came 15 days prior to examination to Paithan for
585.96crapl
study. Latabai told them regarding demand of
Rs.25000/- in the month of October, 1995. She stated
that Jagannath told that accused Sanjay had demanded
Rs.5000/- to him. The witness admits that at Paithan
herself, her husband and her sons did discussion
regarding death of Lata and after three days, they
decided to lodge complaint. The witness stated that Lata
used to go to field of accused for work.
19. P.W.3 Jagannath Mahipatrao Borude is uncle of
Lata. He deposed that on 18.8.95 Lata came to him at
Jaikwadi. She told that accused were demanding
amount and were giving ill-treatment. She demanded
Rs.5000/- from him. He told her that he would discuss
with her father. After one hour accused Sanjay came to
him and demanded Rs.5000/- from him. He stated that
they were in critical financial position and for that
purpose he required Rs.5000/- for the time being. The
witness told him that after salary day, he would decide to
give amount. He further stated that at that time,
accused No.1 Sanjay said to him whether he gives more
585.96crapl
value to money than relation. He took food with him and
in anger he left his house. The witness states that after
half an hour, he went to Paithan and narrated facts to
the father of Lata, Laxmanrao.
It is further stated by the witness that Laxmanrao
said to him that accused demanded Rs.25000/- from
him and he showed his inability to give the amount. He
further deposed that on 23.8.95 Lata went with her
brother Sanjay to the house of accused. On 24.8.95 they
came to know from Jagannath, cousin in-law of Lata that
Lata consumed poison and she was admitted in hospital.
He went to Ghati hospital and came to know that Lata
expired. According to this witness, her husband and
mother-in-law administered poison to Lata and caused
her murder.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that
he went to the house of the accused only for one time
and he never went to bring Lata. He stated that he went
to house of accused after one and half years after her
585.96crapl
marriage. He went alone. He stated that Lata came to
his house 10-12 times. This witness in his cross-
examination stated that he had gone to Borudi for
obsequies and after that, they returned to Paithan. He
admitted that they were making inquiry regarding death
of Lata when they returned to Paithan.
20.
In the foregoing paragraphs, the evidence of
P.W.Nos.1, 2 and 3 has been discussed so as to find out
as to whether before death of Lata she was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or other accused.
If the evidence of P.W.1 Sanjay - complainant and P.W.2
Sumanbai, mother of the complainant in respect of
demand of Rs.500/- and gold ring is considered,
evidence of both these witnesses does not disclose that
Lata was subjected cruelty of personal nature to meet
out illegal demands by the accused. According to the
P.W.1 Sanjay, accused Sanjay asked for Rs.500/- so as
to enable him to bear expenses to attend interview. So
far gold ring of 3 gms given to accused Sanjay is
considered, he sold the same and invested the said
585.96crapl
amount in the name of P.W.2 in Peerless company. So
far demand of Rs.25,000/- is concerned, P.W.2
Sumanbai stated that accused Sanjay demanded
Rs.25,000/- for construction of house to Bhagwan.
Bhagwan is brother of the complainant and son of P.W.2
Sumanabi. However, prosecution has not examined
Bhagwan and therefore, evidence of P.W.2 Sumanbai as
regards demand of Rs.25,000/- by the accused Sanjay is
hearsay.
P.W.3 Jagannath in his evidence stated that
Laxmanrao told him that accused Sanjay asked for
Rs.25,000/- for construction of their house. However,
said Laxmanrao i.e. father of the complainant was not
examined by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence of
P.W.3 Jagannath as regards demand of Rs.25,000/-, is
hearsay.
P.W.1 Sanjay admitted in his cross-examination
that constructions was completed in the month of May,
1995 inasmuch as, slab work was already over. It has
585.96crapl
also come on record that after marriage, accused Sanjay
used to visit house of the complainant with Lata for
marriage of some relative. It has also come on record
that after marriage, Lata completed her education of HSC
i.e. 12th standard. Even if the letters written by the
accused Sanjay, which are exhibited, are read in its
entirety, contents of the same would not attract the
cruelty as defined under Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. Even if the evidence of the witnesses
about demand of Rs.5000/- by accused Sanjay and that
on refusal, accused Sanjay left the house of the
complainant or reacted to P.W.3 Jagannath that he gives
more importance to money than relation, is taken as it is,
it would not attract cruelty. Even if it is taken that if the
amount is not given, accused Sanjay may perform
another marriage, would not attract cruelty as defined
under Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
21. The Supreme Court, in the case of Tummala
Venkateswar Rao vs State of A.P.6, considered the
6 2014(2) Mh.L.J.(Cri.) 284;
585.96crapl
provisions of Section 304-B of IP.C. and section 113-B of
the Evidence Act and held, thus:
"The term "soon before her death" has been
employed by Parliament to refer to cruelty or
harassment which was meted out in proximity to
the death and has to be considered as the cause of
the death. The provision does not employ the term
"at any time before" not "immediately before" and
must be construed according to its true import."
22.
The Supreme Court in the case of Raman Kumar
(supra), while interpreting the provisions of section 304-
B and 498-A of IPC, held that there must be existence of
proximate and live link between effect of cruelty based on
dowry demand and death of deceased. If alleged incident
of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough
not to disturb mental equilibrium of woman concerned, it
would be of no consequence.
23. Therefore, if the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 is
considered in its entirety, it appears that the prosecution
has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that soon before
death of Lata the deceased, was subjected to cruelty or
585.96crapl
harassment by accused Sanjay or other co-accused in
connection with any demand for dowry. Upon perusal of
the findings recorded by the trial Court on aforesaid
aspect, it appears that those findings are in consonance
with the evidence on record and there is no perversity as
such.
24.
According to the prosecution, the spot of the
incident is the house of the accused. As per the report of
the Chemical Analyzer, poison (Thimat) was detected.
Even if, prosecution case is taken as it is, that death of
Latabai occurred in the house of accused, in order to
invoke the provisions of section 106 of the Evidence Act,
the prosecution has to discharge burden u/s 101 of the
Evidence Act. In the present case, there are four
accused. The prosecution has not brought on record any
circumstantial evidence or direct evidence to show that
the accused were present in the house at the relevant
time. In order to invoke the provisions of section 106 of
the Evidence Act, the prosecution ought to have brought
on record the evidence in the nature of last seen together
585.96crapl
or any other evidence which would suggest that the
accused persons were present at the relevant time in the
house. The prosecution has also not brought on record
the evidence showing that poison (Thimat) was forcibly
administered to Lata. In absence of any signs of violence
or external injury on the person of the deceased,
administering poison forcibly could not be believed.
Upon perusal of the entire evidence brought on
record by the prosecution, it appears that the
prosecution has not proved, either by direct evidence or
circumstantial evidence, that poison (Thimat) was
forcibly administered by the accused persons, thereby
committing murder of deceased Latabai. No witness has
stated that, poison (Thimat) was forcibly administered
by the accused persons. The victim had no external
injury or signs of resistance or violence. Therefore, the
view taken by the trial Court acquitting the respondents
for the offence punishable under Section 302 r.w. 34 of
IPC appears to be in consonance with the evidence
brought on record by the prosecution. The entire
585.96crapl
evidence led by the prosecution suggests involvement of
the accused Sanjay only regarding demands and so far
as other accused are concerned, the prosecution has not
brought evidence on record that they asked for some
money or demanded money from the complainant or his
family. Father of the accused Sanjay, at the relevant
time, was running a dispensary. The prosecution has
placed heavy reliance on the disclosure statement of the
accused Sanjay. However, said evidence in absence of
any other evidence on record, would not help the
prosecution so as to prove the guilt of the accused
Sanjay beyond reasonable doubt. It is true that defence
taken by the accused that while spraying insecticide in
the field, Thimat was swallowed by deceased accidentally
by deceased Lata, does not appear to be correct in view of
the quantity of liquid containing poison found in the
stomach. False defence taken by the accused may be an
additional circumstance; however, it cannot form basis
for conviction and prosecution case has to rest upon the
evidence led by the prosecution. Even if accused
admitted Post Mortem Report, State had burden to prove
585.96crapl
the chemical composition of the liquid found in stomach
other than smell.
25. The Supreme Court while explaining scope and
ambit of section 106 of the Evidence Act, in the case of
Sohel Mehaboob Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra,7
held that in case of circumstantial evidence, if there is no
evidence to show that accused was present in the room
when occurrence took place, chain of circumstances is
not complete and accused is entitled to be acquitted.
The fact that accused has not given any explanation
about unnatural death of wife is not material.
26. Yet, in another judgment in the case of Vikramjit
Singh @ Vicky vs. State of Punjab,8 the Supreme Court
held that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a
substitute for proof. The same would lead to only
conclusion that the prosecution has not been able to
prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
7 AIR 2009 SC 2702;
8 2007 ALL SCR 2094;
585.96crapl
While interpreting the provisions of section 106 of
the Evidence Act, the Supreme Court in paragraphs 12 to
15 held, thus:
"12. In the instant case, there are two versions. The
learned Sessions Judge proceeded to weigh the
probability of both of them and opined that the
appellant having not been able to prove its case, the
prosecution case should be accepted. In our opinion,
the approach of the learned Sessions Judge was not
correct. The High Court also appeared to have fallen
into the same error. It invoked Section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act although opining:
"The section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of
its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. But the section would apply to cases
where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts
from which a reasonable inference can be drawn
regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the
accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding
such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might
drive the court to draw a different inference."
13. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not
relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all
reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has
been proved the burden in regard to such facts which
was within the special knowledge of the accused may be
shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of
course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule,
e.g., where burden of proof may be imposed upon the
accused by reason of a statute.
14. It may be that in a situation of this nature where
the court legitimately may raise a strong suspicion that
in all probabilities the accused was guilty of commission
of heinous offence but applying the well-settled
principle of law that suspicion, however, grave may be,
cannot be a substitute for proof, the same would lead to
the only conclusion herein that the prosecution has not
been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
15. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
585.96crapl
Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622 = (1984) 4 SCC
116], this Court laid down the law in the following
terms :
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated
that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and
not "may be" established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be
proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held
by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra where the observations were made: [SCC
para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a court
can convict and the mental distance between 'may be'
and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to
say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
It was further observed :
"179. We can fully understand that though the case
superficially viewed bears an ugly look so as to prima
facie shock the conscience of any court yet suspicion,
however great it may be, cannot take the place of legal
585.96crapl
proof. A moral conviction however strong or genuine
cannot amount to a legal conviction supportable in law.
180. It must be recalled that the well established rule of
criminal justice is that "fouler the crime higher the
proof". In the instant case, the life and liberty of a
subject was at stake. As the accused was given a capital
sentence, a very careful, cautious and meticulous
approach was necessary to be made."
27. Yet, in another judgment in case of Subramaniam
vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr.,9 in paragraphs 15 to
21, the Supreme Court observed, thus:
"15. Mr. Kanagaraj has placed strong reliance upon the
decision of this Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs.
State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] wherein it
was held:
"18. The question of burden of proof where some
facts are within the personal knowledge of the
accused was examined in State of West Bengal v.
Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors.[(2000) 8 SCC 382].
In this case the assailants forcibly dragged the
deceased, Mahesh from the house where he was
taking shelter on account of the fear of the accused
and took him away at about 2.30 in the night. Next
day in the morning his mangled body was found
lying in the hospital. The trial Court convicted the
accused under Section 364 read with Section 34
IPC and sentenced them to 10 years' RI. The
accused preferred an appeal against their
conviction before the High Court and the State also
filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the
accused for murder charge. The accused had not
given any explanation as to what happened to
Mahesh after he was abducted by them. The
learned Sessions Judge after referring to the law on
circumstantial evidence had observed that there
9 2009 ALL MR (Cri) 2118 (S.C.);
585.96crapl
was a missing link in the chain of evidence after
the deceased was last seen together with the
accused persons and the discovery of the dead
body in the hospital and had concluded that the
prosecution had failed to establish the charge of
murder against the accused persons beyond any
reasonable doubt. This Court took note of the
provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and
laid down the following principle in paras 31 to 34
of the reports:
31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on
the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused
should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as
though it admits no process of intelligent
reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien
to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of
the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule
relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is
allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the
offenders in serious offences would be the major
beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.
32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded
in establishing the afore-narrated circumstances,
the court has to presume the existence of certain
facts. Presumption is a course recognised by the
law for the court to rely on in conditions such as
this.
33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the
existence of one fact from the existence of some
other facts, unless the truth of such inference is
disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of
evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be
inferred from certain other proved facts. When
inferring the existence of a fact from other set of
proved facts, the court exercises a process of
reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the
most probable position. The above principle has
gained legislative recognition in India when Section
114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It
empowers the court to presume the existence of
any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In
585.96crapl
that process the court shall have regard to the
common course of natural events, human conduct
etc. in relation to the facts of the case.
34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the
court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused
and they took him out of that area, the accused
alone knew what happened to him until he was
with them. If he was found murdered within a
short time after the abduction the permitted
reasoning process would enable the court to draw
the presumption that the accused have murdered
him. Such inference can be disrupted if the
accused would tell the court what else happened to
Mahesh at least until he was in their custody."
16. Yet again in Ponnusamy vs. State of Tamil
Nadu [(2008) 5 SCC 587], this Court held:
"21. We have to consider the factual background of
the present case in the light of the relationship
between the parties. If his wife was found missing,
ordinarily, the husband would search for he. If she
has died in an unnatural situation when she was
in his company, he is expected to offer an
explanation therefor. Lack of such explanation on
the part of the appellant itself would be a
circumstantial evidence against him.
27. We must also take into consideration the fact
that the dead-body was decomposed with maggots
all over it. Other marks of strangulation which
could have been found were not to be found in this
case. The dead body was found after a few days.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that medical
evidence does not negate the prosecution case."21
case. The dead body was found after a few days.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that medical
evidence does not negate the prosecution case."
17. In both the aforementioned cases, the death
occurred due to violence. In this case, there was no
mark of violence. Appellant has been found to be wholly
innocent. So far as the charges under Section 498A or
Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is concerned, the
585.96crapl
evidence of the parents of the deceased being P.W. 1
and P.W. 2 as also the mediators P.Ws.4 and 5 have
been disbelieved by both the courts below. That part of
the prosecution story suggesting strong motive on the
part of the appellant to commit the murder, thus, has
been ruled out.
18. However, we may notice that in Mohd. Zahid
(supra), this Court opined:
"Of course, the prosecution has established that the
appellant was the only person in the company of
Jabeena and her child at the relevant time on the
fateful day. But this again stops the prosecution case in
the realm of suspicion, which by itself cannot be
substituted for hard evidence. Aware as we are of the
fact, a budding life came to an unfortunate premature
end, our jurisprudence will not permit us to base a
conviction on the basis of the evidence placed by the
prosecution in this case and the benefit of a reasonable
doubt must be given to the appellant."
19. In Sharad Birdichand Sarda vs. State of
Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], this Court has laid
down the parameters for arriving at a opinion in regard
to proof of a prosecution case on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence, stating:
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that
the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may
be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a
legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be
or should be proved as was held by this Court in
Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra
[(1973) 2 SCC 793] where the following observations
were made: (SCC para 19, p.807: SCC (Cri) p.1047].
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the
accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a
585.96crapl
Court can convict, and the mental distance between
'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is
to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a
chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with
the innocence of the accused and must show that in all
human probability the act must have been done by the
accused.
154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based
on circumstantial evidence."
It was furthermore held:
"163. We then pass on to another important point
which seems to have been completely missed by the
High Court. It is well settled that where on the evidence
two possibilities are available or open, one which goes
in favour of the prosecution and the other which
benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly
entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State of
Himachal Pradesh [(1973) 2 SCC 808], this Court made
the following observations:
Another golden thread which runs through the web of
the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if
two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the
case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the
other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to
the accused should be adopted. This principle has a
special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the
accused is sought to be established by circumstantial
evidence."
585.96crapl
20. Yet again in Vinay D. Nagar vs. State of
Rajasthan [(2008) 5 SCC 597], this Court held:
"9. The principle of law is well established that where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature,
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn should in the first instance be fully
established, and the facts, so established, should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and they should be such as to exclude
hypothesis than the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it
must be such as to show that within all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
21. This Court in K.T. Palanisamy vs. State of
Tamil Nadu [(2008) 3 SCC 100], held:
"18. All the prosecution witnesses are related to the
deceased. It is difficult for us to believe that all the
witnesses saw the deceased accompanying the accused
persons one after the other at different places.
Therefore, chances of their deposing falsely cannot be
ruled out. Be that as it may, when the offence is said to
have been committed and the circumstantial evidence
is made the basis for establishing the charge against
the appellant, indisputably all the links must be
completed to form the basis for his conviction."
28. The learned Counsel for the accused also submitted
that there was delay of 3 - 4 days in filing the FIR. It is
submitted that it has come in the evidence of the
complainant that all the family members, after due
deliberation, decided to file complaint. There is no
585.96crapl
explanation offered for the delay in lodging FIR. It is true
that there is 3 - 4 days delay in lodging the FIR. The
Supreme Court, in case of M. Madhusudhan Rao
(supra) held that time and again, the object and
importance of prompt lodging of the First Information
Report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the First
Information Report, more often than not, results in
embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of
an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of
the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the
introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of
the incident or a concocted story as a result of
deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a
serious doubt on its veracity. Therefore, it is essential
that the delay in lodging the report should be
satisfactorily explained.
29. In the case of Nepal Singh (supra), the Supreme
Court held, thus:
"In case of acquittal, there is a double presumption
585.96crapl
in favour of the accused- firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him-secondly, the accused
having secured an acquittal, the presumption of his
innocence is certainly not weakened but reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court."
In the judgment in case of State of A.P. V/s
M. Madhusudhan Rao (supra), the Supreme Court in
para 13 held thus :-
"13. There is no embargo on the appellate court to
review, reappreciate or reconsider the evidence upon
which the order of acquittal is founded. Yet, generally,
the order of acquittal is not interfered with because the
presumption of innocence, which is otherwise available
to an accused under the fundamental principles of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a
court of law, gets further reinforced and strengthened by
his acquittal. It is also trite that if two views are possible
on the evidence adduced in the case and the one
favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial
court, it should not be disturbed. Nevertheless, where
the approach of the lower court in considering the
evidence in the case is vitiated by some manifest
illegality or the conclusion recorded by the court below is
such which could not have been possibly arrived at by
any court acting reasonably and judiciously and is,
therefore, liable to be characterised as perverse, then, to
585.96crapl
prevent miscarriage of justice, the appellate court is
obliged to interfere."
30. Therefore, taking overall view of the matter, it
appears that the view taken by the trial Court is a
possible view. The benefit of doubt deserves to be given
to the accused.
31.
In the result, appeal sans merits and the same
stands dismissed.
Consequently, Criminal Revision Application
No.336 of 1996 filed by the complainant stands
dismissed.
[ A.I.S. CHEEMA, J] [S.S. SHINDE, J]
Kadam.
