Bombay High Court
Bhagwan Nabaji Shinde vs State Of Maha & Ors on 20 August, 2016
Bench: N.W. Sambre
21.04crrev
(1)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.21 OF 2004
Bhagwan S/o Nabaji Shinde,
Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture
Dist: Aurangabad ..APPLICANT
VERSUS
1] The State of Maharashtra
through the Police Station,
M.I.D.C. Paithan, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
2] Vilas s/o. Sakharam Dilwale
Age: 25 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o. Varud, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
3] Sakharam S/o. Laxman Dilwale
Age: 45 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o. Varud, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
4] Meerabai W/o. Sakharam Dilwale
Age: 42 years, Occ: Agriculture
& Household
R/o. Varud, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad.
5] Kailash S/o. Sakharam Dilwale
Age: 18 years, Occ: Agriculture
R/o. Varud, Tq. Paithan,
Dist. Aurangabad
..RESPONDENTS
Mr G.G. Vayal, Advocate for applicant(absent);
Mr N.T. Bhagat, A.P.P. for respondent No. 1
::: Uploaded on - 25/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 26/08/2016 23:59:37 :::
21.04crrev
(2)
CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 20th August, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT :
Mr. G.G. Vayal, learned counsel for the
applicant is absent, as such, this Court heard
learned A.P.P. on the merits of the matter.
2.
Present respondent Nos. 2 to 5 are accused
persons in Crime No.88 of 2001 for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code registered
pursuant to the complaint date 25th September,
2001. The case of the prosecution is that Nirmala
daughter of Bhagwan Shinde, Complainant herein, was
married to respondent No.2, who was born to
respondent Nos.3 and 4. Respondent No.5 is real
brother of respondent No.2. Nirmala died of
consuming of Kerosene, as is reflected from the
post-mortem report dated 25th September, 2001,
within a period of about three years from the date
of her marriage, which is 28th April, 1999.
21.04crrev
3. Initially, Accidental Death Case No. 25 of
2001 was registered and inquest panchnama at
Exhibit-16 was drawn along with spot panchnama at
Exhibit-19.
4. It is the case of prosecution, as is
narrated in the complaint that Nirmala was after
the marriage was initially properly treated for six
months and thereafter the respondents used to beat
Nirmala, as such, drove her to commit suicide.
There are also allegation of cruelty.
5. 5th Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad acquitted the accused persons for an
offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read
with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by
judgment and order dated 31st December, 2003. The
State has not preferred any appeal against the
acquittal, however, complainant Bhagwan, father of
Nirmala preferred present revision application
against the acquittal.
21.04crrev
6. I have perused the judgment delivered by
the Court below along with papers as are available.
It is to be noted that in support of prosecution
case, in all five witnesses were examined i.e. PW-1
Bhagwan, complainant, father of deceased Nirmala,
Pw-2 Satyabhamabai, mother of deceased Nirmala,
PW-3 Babasaheb, brother of deceased Nirmala, PW-4
Pralhad, panch to the inquest panchnama (Exhibit-
16), PW-5 ASI Ashok Jaharwal, the Investigating
Officer. The other documentary material that is
taken in to account is inquest panchnama (Exhibit-
16), A.D. Case No.25 of 2001 at Exhibit-18, based
on information received from police patil, post
mortem report (Exhibit-20).
7. PW-4 Pralhad, who is panch witness, to the
inquest panchnama, has turned hostile.
8. It is to be noted that the evidence of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 i.e. father, mother and brother
of deceased Nirmala, is required to be evaluated
21.04crrev
independently so as to draw inference as to whether
the ingredients of the offence punishable under
Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are
satisfied and whether practising such cruelty the
present respondents-accused have abetted suicide of
Nirmala. One more aspect of which this Court must
take note of, presumption under Section 113-A of
the Indian Evidence Act can be drawn, as the death
of Nirmala is within a period of three years from
the date of her marriage.
9. The post mortem report and other evidence
rules out the administering of kerosene to deceased
Nirmala by exerting physical force but for simple
C.L.W. on the fore head, no other injury was
noticed so as to infer any resistance by Nirmala
qua the act of forcing her to consume kerosene.
Apart from above no other external injuries are
noticed on the body of deceased Nirmala.
10 One more aspect of the matter is relatives
of the complainant i.e. PW Nos. 1 to 3 are
21.04crrev
residents of same place, where the present
respondents-accused were residing and duration of
period for which Nirmala stayed with her in laws
was about two to three years. During this two to
three years period, Nirmala visited about thrice to
her parental house and present applicant or PW Nos.
2 and 3 had at no point of time brought to the
notice of relatives from same village where
respondents were residing so as to mediate or to
lodge any complaint to that effect. Be that as it
may, what could be noticed from the evidence that
is brought on record is that deceased Nirmala
though was married for almost three years back was
unable to conceive and as such, she was under
disturbed state of mind, as other married girls of
her age are already blessed with children. That
could be one of the reason why Nirmala has
committed suicide.
11. From the above discussion and other
material available on record, it is really
difficult to infer that suicide by Nirmala was
21.04crrev
abetted by present respondents-accused. The above
referred view is based on the evidence of PW-2
Satyabhamabai.
12. It is then required to be noted that so
far as the ingredients of offence punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned,
there is hardly any material on record, much less
the evidence of PW Nos. 1 to 3 to infer that the
respondent's conduct and were having knowledge that
their conduct will drive Nirmala to commit suicide.
13. In view of above, in my opinion, the
acquittal as is recorded, does not call for any
interference. The revision application, as such,
is devoid of any merits, fails and stands
dismissed.
(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)
Tupe
