Bombay High Court

Tanaji Tukaram Chavan And Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 11 April, 2016

Bench: S.S. Jadhav

1 1.493.08 apeal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 493 OF 2008

1. Tanaji Tukaram Chavan
2. Vikas Tanaji Chavan
3. Sou. Lilabai @ Shobha Tanaji Chavan
4. Amol Tanaji Chavan

5. Sachin Tanaji Chavan
R/o. Aundh, Tal. Khatau, Dist. Satara .....Appellants

V/s.

The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent

Mr. Milind Deshmukh i/b Mr. Dhananjay Rao Rananaware Advocate for
Appellant

Mrs. A. A. Mane APP for the State.

CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATED : APRIL 11, 2016.

JUDGMENT:

Appellant nos. 1 to 3 & 5 are convicted for offence punishable under

section 306 and 498 (A) r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to

suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years and fine of Rs. 5000/- in

default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month.

Appellant/accused no. 4 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment

for three years and fine of Rs. 3000/- in default to suffer rigorous

ism

2 1.493.08 apeal

imprisonment for one year. No separate sentence is awarded for offence

punishable under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. Appellants are

acquitted of the offence punishable under section 304 (B) of Indian

Penal Code by Additional Sessions Judge Satara in Sessions Case No.

92 of 2007 vide Judgment and Order dated 09/05/2008. Hence, this

appeal.

2) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as

follows.

3) Appellant Vikas was married to deceased Seema on 14/05/2006.

That on 13/11/2006 Seema committed suicide in her matrimonial

home. Mother of Seema namely Smt. Shalan Wagh approached the

police station on 14/11/2006 and lodged a report alleging therein that

her daughter Seema was being harassed and ill-treated in her

matrimonial house. That Seems had informed her about the same. That

they had not taken her complaints seriously. At the time of Diwali,

Seema had come to visit her mother along with her husband. At that

time, husband of Seema had demanded Rs. 10,000/- for purchasing a

pair of bullocks. That Seema was threatened of dire consequences in

ism

3 1.493.08 apeal

the eventuality that demand was not fulfilled. Seema was taken to the

hospital of Dr. Laddad. She was informed that in all probabilites Seema

has conceived pregnancy, however, she was advised to undergo

pathological test to confirm pregnancy. Complainant had assured Vikas

that she would fulfill the demand subsequently. Seema had returned

along with her husband. 10 days prior to 13/11/2006 Seema had

called the complainant telephonically and informed that she was being

harassed and ill-treated in her matrimonial house. That she was also

being harassed and coerced to undergo medical termination of

pregnancy. Complainant had assured her to remain safe and that she

would send her brother to her matrimonial house. On 13/11/2006 in

the evening, complainant at about 5.00 p.m. received a message from

the father-in-law of Seema i.e. Tanaji that Seema had committed

suicide by hanging and therefore complainant along with her relatives

had rushed to Aundh i.e. matrimonial house of Seema. At that time,

dead body of Seema was laid on the cot. Police had also arrived there.

After completion of post-mortem, funeral was performed and

thereafter, complainant and approached the police station alleging

ism

4 1.493.08 apeal

therein that since her daughter could not take ill-treatment anymore,

she has committed suicide. On the basis of her report, crime no. 70 of

2006 was registered at the Aundh police station against the accused for

offence punishable under section 498 (A), 304 (B) r/w 34 of Indian

Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed on

09/02/2007. case was committed to the court of Sessions and

registered as Sessions Case No. 92 of 2007. Prosecution examined as

many as 7 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. Accused

have examined 2 defence witnesses.

4) P. W. 1 Dr. Sushma Jadhav who had performed autopsy on the

dead body of Seema on 13/11/2006. She had performed autopsy and

arrived at a conclusion that cause of death was "Asphyxia due to

hanging". That the death had occurred 6 hours after the last meal. Post

mortem notes are at Exhibit 36. It is categorically admitted in the cross-

examination by the witness that there was no sign of pregnancy.

5) P. W. 2 Dr. Manisha Laddad was a Gynaecologist having her

dispensary and maternity home at Koyana Vasahat Maltapur. She has

deposed before the court that Seema had visited her dispensary on

ism

5 1.493.08 apeal

13/10/2006 at about 6.30 p.m. and had complained that she has

missed her menses. P. W. 2 had advised her to undergo pathological test

to ascertain as to whether pregnancy test was positive and had advised

her to return to the hospital after 10 days.

6) In the cross-examination she has stated that she had issued

certificate at Exhibit 38 on the request of the brother of deceased

Seema. She has deposed on the basis of her memory that Seema was

accompanied by a woman. Upon perusal of the said certificate, it is

clear that doctor had not mentioned on the certificate "LMP" near the

identification marks. She has admitted the same in the cross-

examination. She has denied the suggestion that the certificate was

issued on the request of her brother Santosh. It is a matter of record

that Exhibit 38 has been issued on 15/11/2006 i.e. 2 days after the

death of Seema.

7) P. W. 3 is the Panch who has been declared hostile.

8) P. W. 4 Santosh Wagh happens to be brother of deceased Seema.

His deposition is in consonance with the deposition of the complainant

i.e. P. W. 5. According to Santosh he had been to the house of Seema on

ism

6 1.493.08 apeal

one occasion when she was assaulted in his presence. Seema had

shown injury marks to him. He had requested accused Vikas to forgive

his sister in the eventuality that she has done some error. He has also

deposed before the court that Seema has visited the matrimonial house

at the time of Panchami. She had informed her mother and brother that

accused Sachin had an ill eye upon her. That he used to cut obscene

jokes with her. That she has disclosed about this to her husband and his

parents and they had abused her. When accused no. 1 i.e. father-in-law

of Seema had gone to fetch her from her maternal house, brother of

Seema had requested him to keep her properly. They had sent Seema

along with her father-in-law. That at the time of Diwali accused Vikas

who happens to be husband of Seema had demanded Rs. 10,000/-

through Seema for purchasing bullocks and two Tolas gold chain. She

was sent back to her matrimonial house along with her husband and

soon thereafter, i.e. within 15 days Seema had committed suicide.

According to Santosh on 13/11/2006 at about 5.00 p.m., accused no. 1

had informed them about the suicidal death of Seema.

    9)         In the cross-examination P. W. 4 has categorically stated that his 

    ism





                                                                     7                                                          1.493.08 apeal

sister Seema was smart and good looking. They do not have a

telephonic connection in their house. It is also admitted in the cross-

examination that accused owns a jeep and tractor. It is a specific

allegation of the parents of Seema that accused were taunting on

account of being deaf. P. W. 4 has denied the suggestion that Seema was

under the treatment of a psychiatrist and that she was mentally ill.

10) P. W. 5 Shalan Wagh happens to be mother of deceased Seema.

She has deposed in consonance with her F.I.R. which is at Exhibit 38. it

is pertinent to note at this stage that there is no admission by P.W. 5

that upon receipt of information that Seema had committed suicide by

hanging, they had been to the house of Seema at Aundh. That police

were present and were writing down something. It is pertinent to note

that at that stage in the presence of prosecution witness, A.D. No. 34 of

2006 was registered on the basis of the narration given by accused no.

1. Preliminary investigation was carried out in the presence of

prosecution witnesses P.W. 4 & P. W. 5. Inquest Panchanama was

conducted in A.D. inquiry. Witness has admitted that police had

informed P.W. 5 that body was being sent for post mortem. It is

ism

8 1.493.08 apeal

pertinent to note that at that stage, prosecution witness no. 4 & 5 had

made no grievance against the accused. At that point of time, P.W. 5

could not disclose to the police that Seema was being harassed and

there was demand of Rs. 10,000/- and she had been harassed and ill-

treated on account of non-fulfillment of the demand made just 10 days

before her death, however, no such grievance was ventilated before the

police at that stage. That no specific overt act has been attributed to

original accused no. 4 and accused nos. 1 & 3 who happen to be father-

in-law and mother-in-law respectively. The demand was made by

accused no. 2 and accused no. 5 is alleged to have an evil eye upon

Seema which was not liked by her.

11) In the cross-examination P. W. 5 has also admitted that her

daughter was not wearing bangles and Mangalsutra. It is also admitted

that after accused were enlarged on bail, they have returned the

articles which were gifted to Seema by her mother. She has also

admitted that she had surrendered to the suggestion of her brother

Sunil and Dinkarrao. There are inherent omissions and contradictions

in the substantive evidence of P.W. 5. It is also admitted by P.W. 4 & 5

ism

9 1.493.08 apeal

that they did not have telephonic connection in their house, however,

they stand by their contention that they have telephonic conversation

with Seema. P.W. 4 & 5 have failed to give the identity of the person

who had received the said phone calls.

12) P. W. 6 Netaji Wagh happens to be cousin of deceased Seema.

According to him, Seema had disclosed to him that she was being

harassed and ill-treated at the hands of the accused.

13)

P. W. 7 happens to be Investigating Officer. He has specifically

admitted that accused no. 1 Tanaji had been to the police station on

13/11/2006 and had informed the police about the suicidal death of

Seema and that on the basis of his report, A.D. No. 34 of 2006 was

registered. He has proved the omissions and contradictions in the

evidence of P.W. 4, 5 & 6.

14) Accused had examined Dr. Dnyanesh Kharade who is a

psychiatrist by profession. He has done his Masters in psychiatry. He

was practicing at Phaltan since 1983. He has deposed before the court

that deceased Seema was under his treatment. He has given specific

dates when he had examined Seema. According to him, Seema had

ism

10 1.493.08 apeal

been to his dispensary for the first time on 09/07/2006. She was being

taken to the hospital by her father-in-law and her husband. There were

entries to that effect in the O.P.D. register. He had prescribed medicines

to her. According to him, on 30/10/2006, patient had been to his

hospital. There is entry in the register to that effect. At that juncture, he

had noticed that patient Seema was suffering from schizophrenic

disorder and that response to the medicines was very poor. That patient

was not feeling comfortable in the surrounding activities. He has

changed the medicines. Prescriptions are at Exhibit 82 and 83. It is

pertinent to note that the witness has not been shattered in the cross-

examination. He has deposed on the basis of register maintained at the

hospital.

15) Evidence on record would indicate that accused no. 1 & 3 had

been taking Seema to Dr. Kharade and that she was given treatment for

her mental illness.

16) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in all

probabilities Seema had committed suicide in a fit of temporary mental

disorder and therefore, they cannot be held liable for offence

ism

11 1.493.08 apeal

punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code.

17) It is true that there is no evidence on record which would indicate

that accused persons, more particularly accused nos. 1, 3 & 4 have

facilitated or abetted the commission of suicide, much less there is no

evidence of any ill-treatment to Seema at the hands of accused nos. 1,

3 & 4. Evidence on record would indicate that accused no. 2 has rather

demanded Rs. 10,000/- through Seema just 10 days prior to her death.

There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 4 Santosh that

accused no. 2 had assaulted his wife and that she had shown injury

marks on her person to P.W. 4.

18) Learned APP submits that there is positive evidence on record

which would indicate that accused no. 2 had left the house soon after

the marriage and was sleeping in the courtyard and therefore mental

ill-treatment was meted out to Seema due to which in all probabilities

she had lost her mental equilibrium. That she was hail and hearty

before marriage, however, soon within two and half months of

marriage, she needed psychiatric treatment and that her husband and

her father-in-law were taking her to psychiatrist. There is also no

ism

12 1.493.08 apeal

record to show that Seema was carrying pregnancy at the time of her

death as the post mortem notes do not indicate any changes in organs

of generation. It is also a matter of record that Dr. had issued the

certificate two days after the death of Seema. Hence, the said aspect

does not inspire the confidence of the Court.

19) Taking into consideration the evidence on record, it is clear that

accused nos. 1, 2 & 4 deserve to be acquitted of all the charges levelled

against them. It is a matter of record that accused no. 4 was in the

Armed Forces and that he had come to his native village only two days

prior to the suicidal death of Seema. It cannot be said that any member

of the family had facilitated, abetted or instigated the commission of

suicide by Seema. Hence, the following order.

   



                                                                 O R D E R





    (i)        Appeal is partly allowed. 

    (ii)       Appellant nos. 1, 3 & 4 are acquitted of all the charges levelled 

               against them.

(iii) Appellant nos. 2 & 5 are acquitted of the offence under section

306 of Indian Penal Code.

    ism





                                                                     13                                                          1.493.08 apeal

(iv) Conviction of appellant nos. 2 & 5 is maintained for offence

punishable under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.

20) Learned Sessions Judge had not awarded any separate sentence

for the offence under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. Accused

nos. 2 & 5 were in jail from 14/11/2006 to 17/12/2006. Thereafter, on

09/05/2008 accused were taken into custody and were enlarged on

bail on 05/06/2008.

(v)

Appellant/accused nos. 2 & 5 are sentenced to the period already

undergone.

(vi) Bail bonds of appellants stand cancelled.

(vii) Fine amount, if paid by original accused nos. 1, 3 & 4 be