Bombay High Court
Pandit Baburao Gurgude vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 February, 2016
Bench: S.S. Jadhav
1 202.406.96 apeal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 406 OF 1996
Pandit Baburao Gurgurde .....Appellant
R/o Datane, Taluka : Niphad,
Dist. Nasik.
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra ....Respondent
Mr. Prasanna Bhangale appointed Advocate for Appellant
Mrs. A. A. Mane APP for the State.
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 29, 2016.
JUDGMENT:
None appeared for the appellant. Since the appeal is of the year 1996,
this Court had requested Advocate Mr. Prasanna Bhangale to espouse the
cause of appellant. He has graciously accepted to do so.
2) Appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under sections
498 (A) of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous
imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 2000/- in default to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for 3 months by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Nasik in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1996 vide Judgment and Order dated
29/06/1996. Hence, this appeal.
ism
2 202.406.96 apeal
3) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as
follows.
4) Appellant herein was married to Sharda on 29/04/1994. Couple
was blessed with a son. On 11/01/1996, police of Ozar police station
received an information from Civil Hospital, Nasik that Sharda had
succumbed to death. The cause of death was poisoning. On the basis of
the said information, A.D. No. 1 of 1996 was registered. In the A.D.
inquiry, police had recorded the statement of Bhausaheb who happens
to be son-in-law of the paternal uncle of Sharda. On the next day, P.W. 1
Bhagwant Shinde lodged a report at the police station alleging therein
that Sharda was being harassed and ill-treated by her husband. On
various occasions, he had abused her and physically assaulted her. That
Sharda could not take the ill-treatment anymore and therefore, she
committed suicide by consuming Organo Phosphorous Compound. It is
also stated in the F.I.R. that after P.W. 1 reached to the hospital and
enquired about the cause of death, he was informed by brother-in-law
of Sharda that on the earlier day, there was a quarrel between husband
and wife and as a corollary to the said quarrel, Sharda had consumed
ism
3 202.406.96 apeal
poison. On the basis of the said report, crime no. 3 of 1996 was
registered against the accused for offence punishable under section 306
and 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation,
charge-sheet was filed on 25/02/1996. Prosecution examined 6
witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
5) P.W. 1 Bhagwant Shinde happens to be father of deceased Sharda.
He has deposed before the court that after 4 months of marriage,
Sharda was being harassed and ill-treated at the hands of her in-laws
and that accused no. 1 used to suspect the character of Sharda. It is
alleged that Sharda had disclosed to P.W. 1 that she was being ill-
treated in her matrimonial house. P.W. 1 had given her hopes. It is
contended in the deposition that Sharda had disclosed to her father
that she was being abused by her husband who used to give her kick
and fist blows. On 11/01/1996, they had received a message that
Sharda is hospitalized as she had consumed poison. Her parents and
relatives rushed to the hospital. It is also admitted in the cross-
examination that Sharda had visited her maternal house on 3 to 4
occasions before she committed suicide. She had stayed for 4 months in
ism
4 202.406.96 apeal
her maternal house at the time of her delivery. Family members of
Sharda were visiting her. After receiving the message of consuming of
poison by Sharda, P.W. 1 and other relatives had rushed to the hospital
and had reached the hospital at about 2.30 a.m. At about 7.00 a.m.,
body was handed over to them. No report was lodged with the police
on that day. He has deposed in consonance with the F.I.R. which is
marked at Exhibit 17. It is admitted that Mandabai is the wife of
Bhausaheb and that they reside in village Datane i.e. the village where
Sharda had committed suicide.
6) P.W. 2 Hirabai Shinde is the mother of deceased Sharda. Her
deposition is in consonance with P. W. 1. She has admitted in the cross-
examination that Bhausaheb & Mandabai were present at the time of
cremation. It is pertinent to note that Investigating Officer P.W. 6 had
recorded the statement of Bhausaheb and Mandabai in the A.D. inquiry.
That Bhausaheb and Mandabai had not made any grievance against the
appellant at that stage. In the A. D. inquiry, although, Bhausaheb and
Mandabai were present till the stage of cremation, they had not made
any allegations against present appellant or his family members. That
ism
5 202.406.96 apeal
the prosecution had not examined Bhausaheb and his wife. The
allegation of P.W. 1 and others to the extent of harassment, cruelty and
ill-treatment cannot be accepted at the face value. P.W. 2 has also
admitted in the cross-examination that Sharda had disclosed to her that
her in-laws did not like her to have any communication with her
relatives, however, the accused no. 1 had never prevented her from
talking to her relatives. The inquest panchanama which is at Exhibit 19
does not show sthat Sharda had sustained any injuries prior to her
death.
7) P. W. 3 Pandharinath Shinde happens to be maternal uncle of
Sharda. There are inherent omissions in the evidence of P.W. 3.
8) P.W. 4 Nivrutti Dhanavate is the panch for scene of offence. He
has deposed before the court that at the time of spot panchanama
which is at Exhibit 22, they had discovered a tin containing Endosulfan.
9) P.W. 5 Dr. Narayan Deogaonkar is Medical Officer who had
conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sharda. He has deposed before
the Court that death of Sharda was because of 'Organo Phosphorous
Poisoning with shock'.
ism
6 202.406.96 apeal
10) P. W. 6 Sudam Walke is the Investigating Officer. He has admitted
that A.D. inquiry report was not submitted along with charge-sheet.
11) Learned counsel appointed for the appellant submits that in fact,
charge under section 306 and 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code was framed
against 4 accused persons. That original accused no. 2 happens to be
brother of the original accused no. 1 i.e. present appellant. Original
accused no. 3 was the wife of accused no. 2 and accused no. 4
Bhimabai is the mother of accused nos. 1 & 2. It is submitted that
allegations levelled against all the accused are not only similar but are
same in nature. They are omnibus allegations which do not spell any
particulars of offence punishable under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal
Code. Learned counsel appointed for the appellant further submits that
the suicidal death of Sharda is admitted, however, it cannot be said that
appellant was instrumental in the commission of suicide by Sharda. He
further submits that despite the allegations being same in nature,
original accused nos. 2, 3 & 4 have been acquitted by the Sessions
Court and the present appellant has been convicted only on the ground
that he happens to be husband of the deceased.
ism
7 202.406.96 apeal
12) It is true that safety, security and happiness of the wife is the sole
responsibility of the husband. That Sharda had committed suicide in
her matrimonial home. In fact, accused is bound to explain the
circumstances in which She committed suicide. However, it is not a
case of custodial death.
13) Learned APP vehemently submits that deceased was a mother of
5 months old child and in that circumstance, she would not have
committed suicide.
14) One cannot ascertain the reason of commission of suicide by
Sharda. The evidence adduced by the prosecution falls short to convict
the accused/appellant of the offence under section 498 (A) of Indian
Penal Code. It is stated in the F.I.R. itself that parents of Sharda had
enquired with the accused about the cause of commission of suicide
and at that time, they were given to understand that on the previous
day, there was a quarrel between husband and wife. Being enraged by
the said quarrel Sharda had taken the extreme step of consuming
Organo Phosphorous Compound Endosulfan for which the accused
cannot be held responsible. A trifling quarrel between the spouses
ism
8 202.406.96 apeal
cannot be termed as harassment, cruelty and ill-treatment. The
evidence falls short to convict the accused of offence punishable under
section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.
15) In view of this, appeal deserves to be allowed.
O R D E R
(i) Appeal is allowed.
(ii) The Judgment and Order dated 29/06/1996 passed by 2 nd
Additional Sessions Judge, Nasik in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1996 is
hereby quashed and set aside.
(iii) Appellant is acquitted of offence punishable under section 498
(A) of Indian Penal Code.
(iv) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to the appellant.
(v) Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
(vi) The professional fees is quantified to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to be
paid to appointed Advocate for appellant within 3 months from today.
(vii) Appeal stands disposed of.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
ism
