Bombay High Court
Arun Barikrao Chavan vs The State Of Maharashtra on 29 February, 2016
Bench: S.S. Jadhav
1 apeal292.96.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 292 OF 1996
Arun Barikrao Chavan,
Aged 32 years, Occ. Service,
Residing at Adhav Chawl, Jail Road,
Nashik Road, Nashik,
District-Nashik. ... Appellant.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondent.
---
Mr. Ujwal R. Agandsurve, advocate appointed for Appellant.
Mrs. A.A. Mane, APP for State.
---
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J
DATE : FEBRUARY 29, 2016
JUDGMENT:
1 None appears for the appellant and hence, this Court had
requested Advocate Shri Ujwal R. Agandsurve to espouse the cause of
the appellant. He has graciously accepted the request made by the
Court. Heard the learned Advocate appointed for the appellant and
the learned APP for State.
Talwalkar 1/12
2 apeal292.96.sxw
2 The appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under
Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for
3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- I.d. to suffer R.I. for 2 months.
He is also convicted for offence punishable under Section 498A of the
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay
fine of Rs. 500/- I.d. to suffer further R.I. for one month by the II
Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No. 38 of 1996
vide Judgment and Order dated 12th April, 1996. Hence, this appeal.
3 Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as
follows :
The appellant herein was married to Tulsa/Kamal in the year
1994. On 20/2/1995 the police from Nashik Road Police Station
received a telephonic message from Bitco Hospital, Nashik informing
them that a lady having sustained 100% burn injuries had been
admitted in the hospital. Shrikrishna Pandharinath Rajdeo, who was
attached to Nashik Road Police Station as PSI has visited the hospital.
Talwalkar 2/12
3 apeal292.96.sxw
By then the patient had expired. He recorded inquest panchanama in
the presence of panchas. He then went to matrimonial home of the
injured at village Dasak and recorded spot panchanama which is at
Exh. 15. Upon enquiry he had learnt that the maternal house of the
deceased was village Mundkhed, Bk. of Chalisgaon. He therefore,
telephonically requested the police of Chalisgaon Police Station to
inform her parents and relatives about the death of Tulsa/Kamal.
4 On 21/2/1995 brother of deceased Tulsa/Kamal and other
relatives came to Nashik Road Police Station. Gorakh Pandit Patil
lodged FIR on 21/2/1995 alleging therein that his younger sister was
initially married with one Parmeshwar of Karjal Tal. Chalisgaon,
however her husband had expired 6 years ago and thereafter, she was
re-married to Arun Barikrao Chavan(present appellant). At the time
of marriage, he had given Rs. 10,000/- and the ornaments. After two
months of the marriage Tulsa and her husband had come to the house
of informant and had informed him that they wished to rent another
house and therefore, they are in need of Rs. 4000/- to 5000/-. At that
Talwalkar 3/12
4 apeal292.96.sxw
time he had given Rs. 4,000/- to be paid towards deposit. Thereafter,
Tulsa had visited house of informant alongwith her husband and had
informed her brother that she is being harassed at the hands of her
husband and that he is insisting upon her to fetch money. On the
third visit, she had again complained of harassment at the hands of
her husband and therefore, her brother had requested her to stay in
the maternal house. However, she chose to join her husband in her
matrimonial home.
5 It is alleged by the informant that on 20/2/1995 they had
received a message that Tulsa/Kamal had sustained burn injuries and
was admitted in the hospital. They rushed to the hospital. By then
she had expired and the police were recording panchanama.
According to the informant, Tulsa/Kamal could not take the
harassment any more and therefore, she had committed suicide. She
had sustained 100% burn injuries and therefore, her dying declaration
could not be recorded. On the basis of the statement of Gorakh
Pandit Patil Crime N. 38 of 1995 was registered against the accused
Talwalkar 4/12
5 apeal292.96.sxw
for offence punishable under Section 498A and 306 of the Indian
Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
on 3rd March, 1995.
6 At the trial, the prosecution has examined six witnesses to bring
home the guilt of the accused.
7 P.W. 1 Gorakh Pandit Patil happens to be the elder brother of
deceased Tulsa/Kamal. He has deposed before the court that in the
first visit to the maternal house, his sister had demanded money for
procuring rented premises and that he had obliged her. He has also
deposed before the Court that Tulsa had inherited certain property
from her previous husband and the accused was insisting upon her to
bring that property. She has also disclosed to her brother and other
relatives that accused used to abuse and assault her under the
influence of alcohol and that he was insisting upon her to fetch the
property inherited by her from her previous husband. That she had
intermittently informed her relatives that she was being harassed at
Talwalkar 5/12
6 apeal292.96.sxw
the hands of the accused. They had decided not to send her to the
house of the accused. However, when he visited her, she decided to
join him voluntarily. He has deposed inconsonance with the first
information report lodged by him, which is at Exh. 17. It is admitted
in the cross-examination by P.W. 1 that after death of her first
husband Tulsa had inherited 5 Bigha land. They had sold the said
land for a consideration of Rs. 52,000/- and according to P.W. 1, the
said amount was deposited in her name in a bank. However, pass-
book is not placed on record. In the cross-examination, P.w. 1 had
feigned ignorance about sustaining burn injuries to Tulsa due to
explosion of stove while cooking food.
8 P.W. 2 Ashok Krishna Patil happens to be the brother-in-law of
the deceased Tulsa, i.e. he is the husband of the sister of deceased
Tulsa. There are inherent omissions and contradictions in the
deposition of P.W. 2.
Talwalkar 6/12
7 apeal292.96.sxw
9 P.W. 3 Babulal Patil happens to be the maternal uncle of
deceased Tulsa/Kamal. He had corroborated the evidence of P.W. 1
and 2.
10 P.W. 4 Seetaram Patil happens to be the cousin of deceased
Tulsa/Kamal. There are inherent omissions and contradictions in the
substantive evidence.
11 The relevant witness is P.W. 5 Fakira Kalu Adhav who resides in
the close neighbourhood of deceased Tulsa and appellant. He has
deposed before the court that there used to be intermittent altercation
between the spouses. On the date of incident i.e. 20/2/1995 at about
7.30 p.m. there was quarrel between the accused and his wife. He
had gone to the house of the accused to ascertain as to what has
happened. He saw that the wife of the accused had closed the door
from inside and flames were emanating from the house. The accused
and his brother had broken open the door from outside and then they
had taken her to Bytco hospital. He has admitted in the cross-
Talwalkar 7/12
8 apeal292.96.sxw
examination that on the date of incident he had not gone inside the
house of the accused where the deceased had sustained burn injuries.
12 P.W. 6 Shrikrishna Pandharinath Rajdeo is the investigating
officer who was officiating as PSI at Nashik Road Police Station and
had registered Crime No. 38 of 1995 against the accused.
13 P.W. 1 in this deposition has specifically stated that in the first
visit to her maternal house Tulsa had herself demanded Rs. 4000/- for
procuring rented premises and thereafter, on two occasions, she had
accompanied accused when the amount was demanded. It can be
safely inferred that in fact, Tulsa/Kamal was demanding the amount,
which she has inherited from her first husband. P.W. 1 has not placed
on record any document to show that the amount received after
selling 5 bigha land was actually deposited in the name of Tulsa.
14 Upon appreciation of evidence, it cannot be said for a moment
that Tulsa was being harassed on account of demand for dowry. She
Talwalkar 8/12
9 apeal292.96.sxw
had lived with the appellant for less than a year. There is no reason
to discard testimony of P.W. 1 only to the extent that the deceased
had informed her brother that she was subjected to cruelty at the
hands of her husband.
15 The learned Counsel appointed for the appellant submits that
there is no corroboration to the fact that she was harassed and ill-
treated. In fact, the victim could only disclose such incidents to her
near and dear ones. In any case, P.W. 5 has also corroborated the
evidence of P.W. 1 stating therein that there used to be intermittent
quarrels between the spouses.
16 The prosecution has proved that the victim was being subjected
to harassment and ill-treatment at the hands of the appellant.
However, there is no cogent and convincing evidence, to even
remotely indicate, that the appellant had abetted the commission of
suicide. There is nothing on record to indicate that the appellant had
been suspected that she would take things so far as to commit suicide.
Talwalkar 9/12
10 apeal292.96.sxw
He had no intention to eliminate his wife. It cannot be said that he
had facilitated or abetted commission of suicide and hence, appellant
deserves to be acquitted for offence punishable under Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code.
17 However, since, this Court has relied upon the evidence of P.W.
1 and P.W. 5, the accused appellant deserves to be convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The
appellant was in jail from 26/2/1995 till 25/3/1995. He was taken
into custody on 12/4/1996 and was granted bail by this Court vide
order dated 30/5/1996 and in all probabilities was enlarged from
custody in the first week of June, 1996. Hence, it appears that the
appellant has undergone approximately two months of imprisonment
and he deserves to be sentenced to the period already undergone.
18 Before parting with the Judgment, this Court appreciates the
efforts put in by the learned Advocate Mr. Agandsurve to espouse the
Talwalkar 10/12
11 apeal292.96.sxw
cause of the appellant. The professional fees is quantified at Rs.
2,000/- to be paid to him within 3 months from today.
19 Hence, following order is passed :
ig ORDER
(i) The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The conviction under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code
against the appellant vide Judgment and Order dated 12/4/1996 in
Sessions Case No. 38 of 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Nashik is hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant is
acquitted of the charge under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) The conviction under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code
against the appellant vide Judgment and Order dated 12/4/1996 in
Sessions Case No. 38 of 1996 passed by the Additional Sessions
Talwalkar 11/12
12 apeal292.96.sxw
Judge, Nashik is hereby upheld. However, he is sentenced to the
period already undergone.
(iv) The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
20 The Criminal Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV,J)
Talwalkar 12/12
