Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav vs State Of Maha
2016 Latest Caselaw 3719 Bom

                                                                     cria252.03
                                            1


                                            




                                                                          
          IN  THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 

                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD




                                                  
                         CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.252 OF 2003




                                                 
     Vinod s/o Ramchandra Jadhav,
     Age-27 years, Occu:Agri.,
     R/o-Kaleshwar, Tq-Hadgaon,




                                         
     Dist-Nanded.
                                     ...APPELLANT 
                             
            VERSUS             

     The State of Maharashtra,   
                            
     Through Police Station,
     Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded.   
                                     ...RESPONDENT
      

                          ...
        Shri Gopal D. Kale Advocate for  Appellant.
   



        Shri K.D. Mundhe, A.P.P. for Respondent       
                          ...       





                   CORAM:   A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.

        DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT  : 17TH JUNE,2016.  

        DATE OF PRONOUNCING JUDGMENT: 12TH JULY, 2016.
                                      





     JUDGMENT :

1. The Appellant - accused was tried along

with his parents for offence punishable under

cria252.03

Section 498-A, 306 read with 34 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 ("IPC" in brief), or

alternatively for offence under Section 304-B read

with 34 of IPC. While his parents came to be

acquitted, the Appellant - accused (hereafter

referred as "accused") was convicted under Section

498-A of IPC and sentenced to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for two years and fine of Rupees Two

Thousand. In default of fine, he has been directed

to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six

months. He was convicted for offence punishable

under Section 306 of IPC and sentenced to suffer

rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay

fine of Rupees Three Thousand. In default of fine,

he has been directed to suffer further rigorous

imprisonment for six months. Thus, this Appeal.

2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is as

under:-

A). On 26th October 2000 one Anandrao

cria252.03

Marotrao Jadhav of village Kaleshwar, Tq-Hadgaon,

Dist-Nanded filed Accidental Death Report at

Police Station, Hadgaon informing that, on that

day at about 2.30 p.m. when he was present near

his house, one Meerabai, wife of accused, consumed

poisonous insecticide while being at the house of

her husband. Coming to know this, he along with

one Subhash Jadhav, made her sit on his motorcycle

and were taking her to Umerkhed and at which time

from her mouth and ears white froth started coming

out and it was smelling of poisonous medicine. She

stopped speaking. When her head rolled on one

side, they stopped the motorcycle near one

Bitergaon. They saw that she had no motion and she

was dead. Thinking that it would make no point in

now taking her to Umerkhed, they returned to their

village and the dead body was kept, by her husband

and them, at his house on a cot. There being no

conveyance to come to the Police Station, the

report was then being filed.

cria252.03

B). The Police Station registered A.D. Report

at about 7.35 p.m. (vide Exhibit 27). A.S.I.

Vithal Kendre (PW-6) sent a police constable in

the night to keep watch on the dead body and in

the morning of 27th October 2000 went to the spot

and prepared inquest panchnama (Exhibit 13) and

also the spot panchnama (Exhibit 14). The body was

sent for postmortem which was done at 1.35 p.m. by

Dr. Venkatesh Dhat (PW-2) and gave report

(Exhibit 18). The uncle of the victim Meera,

namely, Panditrao Kadam (PW-3) filed F.I.R.

(Exhibit 20) on 27th October 2000 and crime was

registered at about 3.20 p.m.

C). In the F.I.R., PW-3 Panditrao Kadam

reported to the police that the victim was

daughter of his brother Wamanrao, who is simpleton

and does not know worldly transactions. The victim

had lost her mother when she was a child. The

complainant got her other sisters married and also

brought about the marriage of the victim with

cria252.03

accused on 9th May 1999, in which ornaments,

utensils, clothes and Rupees Twenty Five Thousand

were given as per the custom. Victim was treated

well for some time and then her in-laws started

saying that she does not do work properly and her

behaviour is not good. She was being abused and

beaten. She told this to him when she was coming

to his place. The victim was married to accused

who was living in the same village of Kaleshwar.

The F.I.R. mentions that the complainant told

victim that he is in the same village and she

should not worry and so saying she was being sent

back. When her trouble from the parents-in-law

increased, complainant asked the villagers to

intervene. The victim and her husband were got

separated from parents-in-law of the victim. Since

six months before incident, the victim and accused

were residing separate but the accused kept going

to his parents and his mother used to keep coming

to their place and kept taunting at the victim and

kept telling falsely the accused regarding

cria252.03

character of the victim. The accused was

thereafter coming home and abusing the victim and

beating her. This was told by victim to the

complainant many times and he had tried to explain

to the accused. Fifteen days before the incident,

accused told the victim that her father and uncle

had got him separated from his parents and now for

ploughing the field, he does not have bullocks and

to purchase bullocks she should bring Rupees Ten

Thousand from her father and uncle or else she

should not come to him. So saying, he had sent the

victim to the complainant. The complainant told

the victim that the money is not necessary and

when complainant's ploughing is over in two days,

his bullocks can be used by the accused and thus

the victim was sent back. This was explained to

the accused also. For Diwali festival, the

complainant sent his son Dnyaneshwar to the

accused and on 25th October 2000 victim was

brought to the house of complainant. On 26th

October 2000 at about 1.30 p.m. the accused went

cria252.03

to the house of the complainant and wanted the

victim to go with him to their house for smearing

cow-dung water in the house. Victim told the

accused that it can be done after Diwali is over

and what is the hurry. But accused forced victim

to come along. She went along with Tukaram, son of

complainant and one Vitthal to their house.

Reaching the home, the accused addressed her as

whore and started saying that she has become too

smart and started beating her. The two boys,

Tukaram and Vitthal, and Datta the brother of

accused and wife of Datta intervened to push the

accused outside the house, at which time victim

went in the portion of house of Datta and picked

up insecticide and consumed it. This was told by

son of complainant who came to tell the same to

him. The complainant had gone and saw that the

victim had consumed insecticide. She was taken on

motorcycle by Anandrao Jadhav and Subhash Jadhav

for treatment towards Umerkhed but she died on the

way. Thus, the complaint was being filed.

cria252.03

D). On receiving the F.I.R. as above, PW-6

A.S.I. Vithal Kendre who had inquired into the

accidental death report, registered the offence

and investigated the same. Statements of witnesses

came to be recorded. The viscera was preserved by

the doctor. Said viscera was sent to C.A. through

carrier (PW-5) Datta Shelke. C.A. reports were

received. It transpired that victim died due to

consumption of insecticide. After investigation,

charge-sheet came to be filed.

3. The accused persons pleaded not guilty.

The defence of the accused is of denial. The fact

that the marriage took place on 9th May 1999 and

the marriage was brought about by PW-3 Panditrao

Kadam, is not in dispute. It is not in dispute

that when the marriage took place, the accused

along with his parents were living together. At

the time of Diwali of 2000, victim had gone to the

place of her parents, is also not disputed. The

cria252.03

victim died due to consumption of insecticide is

also not disputed. According to the accused, on

day of incident he was in the field of complainant

Panditrao for getting his jawar thrashed and

Tukaram, son of complainant came to the field

asking for key of his house as victim wanted to go

home. According to accused, Tukaram said that

there was quarrel between Godavaribai, the wife of

complainant and victim and as Godavaribai scolded

the victim, she wanted to go home. He had given

the key to Tukaram. After some time PW-4 Vitthal

Kadam came running to the field informing that due

to the quarrel of victim with Godavaribai, victim

has consumed insecticide and was lying in the

house. He went home and saw people gathered in his

house. He took the victim beyond the river and

tried to take her to the hospital. She was put on

motorcycle by him with one Subhash and another but

she died after the motorcycle went some distance.

4. The above admitted facts and defence can

cria252.03

be seen from cross-examination of the witnesses

and the statement under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure.

5. The trial Court considered the evidence

as well as the defence and after examining the

same, trial Court convicted the Appellant -

accused as above and acquitted the parents for

want of sufficient evidence.

6. In this Appeal it is claimed and argued

on behalf of the Appellant - accused that Anandrao

Jadhav who had filed the A.D. Report Exhibit 27,

was not examined in the trial Court. The F.I.R.

was delayed and filed only on the next day. Father

of the victim was not examined. It was not clear

as to why alleged ill-treatment was there.

According to the counsel, Section 498-A of IPC was

not established. Although it was claimed that the

victim was beaten by the accused, no injury was

found on her person in the postmortem. As per the

cria252.03

counsel, the evidence of PW-4 Vitthal Kadam, who

was a minor, required corroboration. The counsel

relied on some Rulings on this count. It is also

stated that nexus between the cruelty and suicide

is required to be established. According to the

counsel, it was not proved that accused was making

demand of money for purchasing bullocks.

7.

Per contra, the learned A.P.P. submitted

that there was evidence of complainant, which

proved cruelty. The complainant was not shattered

in cross-examination. The evidence showed that the

victim was continuously harassed and in hardly 1½

year of marriage, the incident had occurred. The

victim was beaten on the auspicious day of Laxmi-

Poojan and abused, can be seen from the evidence

of PW-4 Vitthal and thus she committed suicide.

Presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian

Evidence Act was rightly raised by the trial Court

and the accused has been correctly convicted.

cria252.03

8. I have gone through the evidence and the

documents. Before considering the oral and

documentary evidence, it would be appropriate to

make brief reference to the Judgments relied on by

the learned counsel for the accused :

(a). The counsel relied on the Judgment in the

matter of Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and others vs.

State of Maharashtra, reported in 1993 CRI. L.J.

3019, in which, in the context of Section 498-A of

IPC, it was observed by the learned Single Judge

of this Court, in Para 25, as under:-

"Hence, under Clause (a) the cruelty has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. If cruelty is by itself established and the fact of suicide is also established, it would not

be sufficient to bring home the guilt or committing cruelty as defined in explanation

(a). A reasonable nexus had to be established between the cruelty and the suicide in order to make good the offence of cruelty.

cria252.03

Alternately, the cruelty established has to

be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide etc. If suicide is

established it has further to be established that it was occasioned on account of cruelty which was of sufficient gravity so as to lead

a reasonable person placed in similar circumstances to commit suicide."

(b). The learned counsel for Appellant further

relied on the Judgment in the case of Assoo vs.

State of M.P., reported in 2012 CRI. L.J. 658, to

refer to the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Para 5 of the Judgment, which were as

below:-

"It must be noted that every quarrel between

a husband and wife which results in a suicide cannot be taken as an abetment by the husband and the standard of a reasonable and practical woman as compared to a headstrong

and over sensitive one, has to be applied."

(c). The counsel for the accused further

referred to the observations of the Hon'ble

cria252.03

Supreme Court in Para 26 of its Judgment in the

matter of Mangat Ram vs. State of Haryana,

reported in A.I.R. 2014 Supreme Court 1782, which

are as follows:-

"We are of the view that the mere fact that if a married woman commits suicide within a

period of seven years of her marriage, the presumption under Section 113-A of the

Evidence Act would not automatically apply. The legislative mandate is that where a woman

commits suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that her husband or any relative of her husband has subjected her

to cruelty, the presumption as defined under

Section 498-A, IPC, may attract, having regard to all other circumstances of the case, that such suicide has been abetted by

her husband or by such relative of her husband. The term "the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been

abetted by her husband" would indicate that the presumption is discretionary."

9. Keeping the above observations in the

cria252.03

Rulings referred, in view, which were made in the

context of the facts of those matters, it would be

now appropriate to refer to the facts as emerge in

the present matter.

10. The marriage took place on 9th May 1999,

is not disputed. There is no dispute regarding the

fact that the father of the victim, who is brother

of the complainant Panditrao, is simpleton and

does not understand the worldly affairs and the

marriage was brought about by the complainant

Panditrao. If the evidence of Panditrao (PW-3) is

seen, it shows that he brought up the victim since

childhood and even provided education to her and

he gave her in marriage to the accused. He deposed

that he had given gold ornaments, utensils and

clothes and Rupees Twenty Five Thousand as dowry

in the marriage and victim had gone to reside with

accused Nos. 1 to 3. His evidence shows that after

marriage when victim was visiting his house, which

is in the same village, she was telling that her

cria252.03

in-laws tease her, taunt her and the husband was

ill-treating her, at the instance of his parents.

The evidence of complainant shows and it is not in

dispute that the complainant took help of

villagers to intervene and accused was separated

from his parents. The evidence is that the accused

along with victim then started living separately

in a house divided between the brothers.

. The evidence of PW-1 Shriram Kadam has

proved the spot panchnama Exhibit 14. Perusal of

the spot panchnama gives description of the house

where the victim was living and also contains a

sketch. The sketch clearly shows that the

residential portions were divided between the

accused and his brother Datta. The half portion of

Datta is towards South and the accused had half

portion towards North. Both the portions are

facing East where there appears to be a court-

yard. In the court-yard further facing East, is a

Kirana shop which was being run by Datta. The

cria252.03

entrance of the court-yard appears to be from

South towards North.

. Coming back to the evidence of

complainant, it can be seen from his evidence that

separation was brought about by the complainant

with the help of villagers. He was naturally

interested in the welfare of the daughter of his

simpleton brother, which victim had lost her

mother when she was just couple of months old. He

brought about the marriage and his concern for the

victim is understandable. This fact that the

complainant brought about the partition, is not in

dispute. It shows that indeed there was trouble in

the married life of the victim.

11. The evidence of complainant PW-3

Panditrao, however, further shows that inspite of

the separation, when victim was coming to him, she

told him that her trouble had not stopped and was

still continuing. The evidence shows that fifteen

cria252.03

days before Diwali of 2000, victim had come to the

complainant and told him that accused was asking

for bullocks because as he was separated from his

father, he wanted the bullocks to cultivate his

land. Complainant deposed that he told the victim

that he was not having money but pair of his

bullocks can be borrowed for temporary purpose.

Evidence is that for Diwali, victim was brought to

the house of the complainant. The evidence of

complainant read along with evidence of PW-4

Vitthal shows that at such time, on the day of

Laxmi-Poojan, at about 1.00 - 1.30 p.m. this

Vithal, who is cousin brother of victim, was at

the house of complainant. At that time the accused

went there and asked victim to accompany him for

smearing the house with cow-dung. Victim told the

accused why there was haste and after Diwali it

would be smeared. Evidence of PW-4 Vitthal is that

victim then took him and Tukaram (son of

complainant) along with her and went to her house.

At the house the accused started beating her

cria252.03

saying that why the whore did not come when

called. Evidence of PW-4 Vitthal is that he and

his cousin brother, and brother and wife of

accused intervened and separated the accused.

According to this witness, some people gathered

when such incident was taking place. The witness

PW-4 Vitthal deposed that when people gathered,

the accused started driving them away, at which

time the victim went into the portion of house of

brother of accused and consumed the insecticide

from a canister. PW-4 Vitthal claims that he and

Tukaram then ran to the field of complainant to

tell him. The evidence of PW-4 Vitthal, on this

count, is corroborated by the complainant, whose

evidence shows that they did come to his field and

tell him about such incident.

12. If the cross-examination of the

complainant is perused, it was suggested to him

and he accepted it to be true that accused had

received half share in the house where his brother

cria252.03

Datta was living and that Datta was running a

Kirana shop. The cross-examination shows that

after the partition, Datta, the brother was

cultivating his land separately. In the cross-

examination complainant accepted that Anandrao

Jadhav and Subhash Jadhav did bring back the dead

body of victim on motorcycle from midst of the way

and placed it on the cot in the court-yard of the

house of accused. He deposed that he had gone to

see the dead body. According to this complainant,

at that time Datta and his wife were present there

but accused persons were not there. His cross-

examination shows that one day before the

incident, victim had come to his house for Diwali.

In the cross-examination, accused brought on

record that there was a rape case filed against

Vishnu, the brother of victim. The defence was

put-up to this complainant that on the count of

Vishnu, there was a quarrel between the victim and

Godavaribai, the wife of complainant. The

suggestions on this count were denied by the

cria252.03

witness. The plea of alibi taken by the accused

that at the time of incident he was on the field

of the complainant, is also not proved, as

suggestion on that count was denied by the

complainant and the accused has not brought any

other evidence to show that at the relevant time

he was at the field of the complainant.

13.

In the cross-examination of the

complainant, it was asked and he stated that he

did not know if accused had taken the victim

beyond the river by lifting her from the house. In

the cross-examination of the investigating officer

PW-6 Vithal Kendre, it was asked by the accused

and he stated that his inquiry showed that the

deceased was carried across the river Painganga on

person and thereafter on motorcycle. He was

further asked and stated that his inquiry showed

that some villagers and accused had lifted victim

on their person and took her across the river.

Although the investigating officer was asked and

cria252.03

he deposed like this, the evidence would not be

admissible as it would be hear-say of the

investigating officer. In this context, relevant

is the evidence of PW-1 Shriram Kadam who although

a Panch, was asked in the cross-examination and

deposed that on the day of incident, he had seen

Anandrao and Subhash taking the victim towards

river for taking her to the hospital and that they

had lifted her. When it was suggested to this PW-1

Shriram, he did not accept that he saw accused

taking the victim to the hospital after crossing

the river, on motorcycle. He deposed that he did

not see whether accused took victim to the

hospital after crossing the river. When the

witness claimed that he saw Anandrao and Subhash

doing so and claims that he did not see the

accused participating in the act, his evidence

only shows that the accused did not do so. Thus

the efforts of the accused to show that he had

tried to save the victim, is not finding any base

in the evidence. Again, even if he made any such

cria252.03

effort, that would not reduce the intensity of the

cruelty he inflicted on the victim when on an

auspicious day of Diwali, he forcibly took her

back from the place of her parents and calling her

whore, had beaten her. Again, it is unnatural for

the husband to let two other men take along his

wife (naturally sitting in the centre) on

motorcycle to save her and he does not offer to

himself sit behind his wife to hold her and go

along if he was really concerned.

14. As regards the evidence of PW-4 Vitthal

Kadam, counsel for the accused stated that the

witness was a child witness and could not be

relied on without having corroboration. Reliance

was placed on the case of Bhagwansingh and others

vs. State of M.P., reported in A.I.R. 2003 Supreme

Court 1088(1). In that matter, the child concerned

was of the age of six years and it was observed by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court that although the law

recognizes the child as a competent witness, but a

cria252.03

child, particularly at such a tender age of six

years, who is unable to form proper opinion about

the nature of incident because of immaturity of

understanding, is not considered by the Court to

be a witness whose sole testimony can be relied

without other corroborative evidence. In that

matter, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that

the trial Judge had recorded demeanour of the

child who was vacillating in the course of his

deposition. It was observed that if it appeared

that there was a possibility of his being tutored,

the Court should be careful in relying on his

evidence. Thus, it would be necessary to see the

facts of the present matter.

15. In the present matter firstly it needs to

be stated that PW-4 Vitthal, at the time of

incident, was about 12 years of age and was taking

education. At the time of evidence, this witness

was 14 years old. The trial Court put questions to

the witness and found that he was fit enough to be

cria252.03

administered oath. I have also gone through the

evidence of the witness PW-4. The witness appears

to be of a clear understanding and was not

wavering in any manner. I have already referred to

his evidence as seen in the examination-in-chief.

It would be thus now appropriate to see if the

witness could be said to be shattered in the

cross-examination. The witness was asked and he

gave details that the house of the accused is in

the middle of the village and the house of his

uncle is at one end of the village. According to

him, it takes fifteen minutes to walk and reach

the house of the accused from the said place. His

evidence in cross-examination shows that the

victim used to visit the house of complainant at

intervals of 8 - 15 days or a month. This shows

that the victim had various opportunities to tell

her uncle regarding her plight which is deposed to

by the complainant. PW-4 Vitthal was asked and

gave names of the neighbours of the house of the

accused. He corroborates the complainant in cross-

cria252.03

examination that a day before Laxmi-Poojan, his

cousin Dnyaneshwar was sent to bring the victim to

the house of the complainant. His cross-

examination shows that between the house of the

complainant and accused, there are about 25 houses

on the way and the road has people passing and

there are shops and houses. It was then asked by

the cross-examiner and the witness deposed as

under:

"Many villagers had gathered at the house of Meerabai when we had gone. They were

saying that she had consumed insecticide

(Aushad). When I learnt about it I ran towards the field to inform to Panditrao".

. On the basis of such cross-examination it

appears, in the trial Court accused tried to take

advantage to claim that the witness had reached

the house of accused after the victim had consumed

insecticide. In Para 30 of the Judgment, the trial

cria252.03

Court observed that this was a stray sentence and

on the basis of the same the version of the

witness could not be discarded. According to trial

Court, the admission of PW-4 Vitthal could not be

considered in isolation. The trial Court then

considered the admission in the context of

examination-in-chief of the witness and properly

appreciated the evidence, rejecting the argument

that the evidence of the witness was required to

be discarded. I have also seen the evidence and

find that in the examination-in-chief the witness

had stated that when at the house of the accused,

the accused started abusing the victim and beating

her, some persons gathered there. The witness had

stated that accused started driving away those

persons and then the victim had gone towards the

house of brother of accused and consumed

insecticide. In the examination-in-chief he did

state that he and Tukaram immediately ran towards

the field to call the complainant. Now, the cross-

examiner in the cross-examination, put suggestions

cria252.03

to this young teen-ager in pieces. One sentence is

put and the witness accepts that many villagers

had gathered at the house of the victim when they

had gone there. The next question put is that the

people were saying that the victim has consumed

insecticide. The witness accepted this suggestion

as in examination-in-chief he had indeed deposed

that the victim had gone inside the house and

consumed insecticide. The third question which was

put was that when the witness learnt that the

victim had consumed insecticide, they had run

towards the field. This also was what he had

stated in examination-in-chief. Experience of

recording evidence shows that the cross-examiners

do, at times, put same questions with slight

variations to the witnesses in pieces referring to

different parts of their examination-in-chief but

not in sequence witness stated, or leaving out

some parts. Subsequently attempt is made to read

those admissions in a sequence. The accused, after

putting the questions of different parts of the

cria252.03

incident in pieces, is trying to read the above

evidence in sequence. According to me, it would be

misreading of the evidence. Unless the witness in

the cross-examination admits unequivocally the

sequence, the evidence cannot be so misread so as

to discard the examination-in-chief. The accused

has not brought on record any admission of PW-4

Vitthal that they had reached the house of accused

only after the insecticide was already consumed by

the victim.

16. The other effort made by the accused is

to say that the witness should be disbelieved

because an omission is proved in his statement to

police. The witness was asked in the cross-

examination and it is recorded :-

"I stated before the police during my statement that I and Tukaram intervened to separate Meerabai when the accused No.1 was beating."

cria252.03

. Then he was asked and he stated that he

did not know why police did not record such

statement. In the cross-examination of A.S.I. PW-6

Vithal Kendre, he was asked and he stated with

reference to PW-4 that:-

"He did not state before me that he

intervened when Meerabai was being beaten."

. In arguments effort is being made to

state that there is omission regarding the

statement of this witness that he had intervened

and that Meerabai was beaten in his presence. From

the original Record and Proceedings, I have seen

the statement of PW-4 which was recorded by the

police on 27th October 2000, which is the day when

F.I.R. was registered. The witness had told the

police that as soon as they had reached the house,

husband of the victim abused her calling her whore

and that she had become too smart and why she did

not come when she was called and so saying he beat

cria252.03

her by kicks and blows. Thus, in the statement to

police, the witness had stated that he had seen

accused No.1 abusing his wife and beating her. In

evidence, however, the omission has been so

brought on record as if he had not told the police

that accused had beaten his wife. The omission,

really speaking, is only to the extent that this

witness and Tukaram had intervened, was not told

to the police. In some other cases also I have

noticed and even observed in earlier Judgments

that the trial Courts, many times, are not

attentive and alert while recording contradictions

and omissions. In fact it is the duty of the

A.P.P. and also the trial Court to be careful

while recording contradictions and omissions.

There is no reason why the trial Court should not

have in hand, the concerned statement to police

when contradictions and omissions are tried to be

brought on record by the accused. It is their

responsibility to see that correct contradictions

and correct omissions are brought on record. While

cria252.03

recording omission, in the present matter, it was

necessary for the trial Court while recording the

evidence, to record that the omission was only to

the extent of intervention and not with regard to

beating.

17. Having thus examined the cross-

examination of PW-4 Vitthal Kadam, I do not find

that the witness is shattered in any manner.

18. I do not find any reason to disbelieve

the complainant and PW-4 Vitthal, the evidence of

which witnesses clearly shows that the victim was

subjected to cruelty by the accused who beat her

on the auspicious day of Diwali. The marriage was

hardly 1½ years old and such treatment to the wife

could not be justified. Her reaction of going into

the portion of house of her brother-in-law and

consuming insecticide when her husband was driving

away the onlookers from the village who had

gathered, shows her frustration. The accused was

cria252.03

responsible for her suicide because of his

behaviour. The trial Court has rightly accepted

evidence on this count and convicted him.

19. In the arguments, the learned counsel for

the Appellant - accused tried to say that there

was delay in filing of the F.I.R. and Anandrao

Jadhav, who recorded the Accidental Death Report

on 26th October 2000, was not examined. The trial

Court has considered the argument on this count to

find that lots of action took place on 26th

October 2000 in the sense that the incident took

place in the afternoon and then there was effort

by two villagers i.e. Anandrao Jadhav and Subhash

Jadhav to put victim on motorcycle and try to take

her to hospital and when she died on the way, they

brought her back and then in the early morning,

inquest panchnama, spot panchnama was done and

postmortem done in the afternoon and thereafter

the complainant filed the F.I.R. The trial Court

did not find that delay was fatal. Looking to the

cria252.03

record, it does appear that in the evening of 26th

October 2000 itself one Anandrao, who had tried to

save the victim, had given Accidental Death

Report, which I have referred earlier in the

Judgment. The A.S.I. Vithal Kendre, PW-6, recorded

inquest panchnama Exhibit 13 in the early morning

at 8.00 a.m. It appears that the police station is

about 17 k.m.s from Kaleshwar. The evidence also

shows that the villagers are required to cross a

river. Exhibit 27, Accidental Death Report itself

mentions about difficulty of conveyance these

villagers had. In the spot panchnama Exhibit 14

itself it is recorded that Datta, the brother of

the accused, who showed the spot, gave the

particulars of the incident. The trial Court

expunged those portions. Datta is not accused in

the matter so as to expunge those portions.

However Exhibit 14 recorded at 9.10 a.m. of 27th

October 2000 itself shows that the incident was

told to the police at least early morning itself.

The evidence of PW-6 A.S.I. Vithal Kendre is that

cria252.03

when A.D. Report Exhibit 27 was received, senior

police officer was not at Hadgaon and so he could

not leave the police station in the evening and

had deputed the police constable to watch the dead

body in the night. The plight of these villagers,

the law has put in the hands of such police

machinery. Looking to the facts of the matter, I

do not find that there is any reason to doubt the

contents of the F.I.R. Exhibit 20 registered by

the police. There are convincing reasons recorded

by the trial Court regarding delay. I do not find

that the accused can be given any disadvantage for

delay in registration of the F.I.R. There is

overwhelming and appealing evidence in this matter

to show that victim was subjected to cruelty by

the accused and he was responsible for her

suicide. The trial Court correctly appreciated the

evidence and convicted the accused.

20. It is argued that in the postmortem

report of the victim no external injury was found.

cria252.03

In the postmortem report no external injury was

found, does not mean that the evidence that the

husband beat his wife at home could be doubted. It

is not necessary that beating has to be of such

intensity that it should show on the person even

when the victim had died due to ensuing suicide

and was taken to the doctor only on the next day.

21.

There is no substance in the arguments

raised on behalf of the Appellant - accused. There

is no substance in the Appeal. The Appeal is

dismissed. The accused shall surrender to his Bail

Bonds before the trial Court by 27th July 2016.

The trial Court shall ensure the execution of

sentence.

[A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.]

asb/JUL16