Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Madhukar Dasaji Deshmane & Ors on 6 June, 2016
Bench: A.I.S. Cheema
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.456 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
through the Police Station,
Dindrud, through Machindra
Balaji More, Age 22 years, Occu. Agri.
R/o Purushottampuri, Tal. Majalgaon,
District Beed. ... APPELLANT
(Original Complainant)
VERSUS
1. Madhukar s/o Dasaji Deshmane,
Age 26 years, Occu. Labour,
R/o Dindrud, Tal. Majalgaon,
District Beed.
2. Gangubai w/o Dasaji Deshmane,
Age 50 years, Occu. Household,
R/o as above. ... RESPONDENTS
(Original Accused)
.....
Shri R.V. Dhasalkar, A.P.P. for appellant/ State
Shri M.A. Tandale, Advocate for respondents
.....
CORAM: A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.
DATED: 6th June, 2016.
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal has been filed by the State against the
acquittal of respondent accused Nos.1 and 2 under Sections 498-
A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
(I.P.C. in brief). The judgment was passed in Sessions Case
No.90/1998 on 17.3.2003 by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,
Beed.
2. The case of prosecution in short is as follows :
(a) On 30.5.1998, the complainant Machindra Balaji
More, uncle of victim Asha, wife of respondent - accused No.1
Madhukar Deshmane filed statement at the Outpost at Civil
Hospital, Ambajogai, with A.S.I. Arjun Kamble (P.W.7). It was
reported by him that, Asha was married to accused No.1 and
accused No.2 is the mother-in-law. The marriage had taken
place about one and a half year back. After marriage, Asha was
treated well for about two months and thereafter the accused
persons were asking the victim Ashabai to bring Rs.10,000/- for
field purpose and for buying sewing machine and for the same,
were troubling her. She was not being provided proper food,
clothes or oil for her head. The victim had complained about this
to the complainant and her parents. Her father had taken up the
matter before the Women's Grievances Redressal Cell on
1.4.1998 and Police Station was also orally informed. The victim
used to say that she does not feel like living. On 29.5.1998,
from one Jagannath Deshmane, the complainant came to know
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
that the victim had got burnt and taken to the hospital. The
relatives went to the hospital. It was learnt that the victim was
burnt to the extent of 90% and before giving statement she
expired at 7.05 p.m. of 29.5.1998. Thus, the complaint was
filed.
(b) A.S.I. P.W.7 Kamble recorded the statement and sent
the same to Ambajogai Police Station, where offence was
registered as Crime No.50/1998. The document has been proved
at Exh.23. P.W.7 investigated the matter. He prepared the
inquest panchanama (Exh.24). The body was sent for post
mortem (Exh.29). Spot panchanama (Exh.26) was prepared.
Statements of witnesses were recorded. Part of the investigation
was done by A.P.I. Mane (P.W.6). After investigation, charge
sheet was filed under Sections 498-A and 306 of the I.P.C.
3. Charge was framed against the accused persons for
Sections mentioned above. The accused pleaded not guilty.
Their defence is of denial.
4. Before the trial Court, prosecution examined 7
witnesses to prove the offence. Trial Court considered the
evidence led by the prosecution and the defence of the accused
as appearing from the cross-examination and for reasons
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
recorded, acquitted the accused persons.
5. Now, the learned A.P.P. for State has argued the
matter praying for conviction. He has taken me through the
evidence of various witnesses. According to the learned A.P.P.,
the judgment of the trial Court itself shows that the trial Court
recorded finding (in para 14 of its judgment) that harassment
was established, but in spite of such finding, the trial Court
acquitted the accused adopting reasoning that it was not proved
that the harassment was of such a nature that the victim would
have committed suicide. It is argued that, the judgment of the
trial Court is not maintainable and relying on the evidence
brought on record, the accused should have been convicted.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents - accused
submitted that the evidence of the doctor itself shows that the
burns were only on the front part of the body and deep burns
were found to the thigh of the victim. The spot panchanama
shows that there was hearth in the compound of the house
where the incident took place and the incident took place in the
afternoon, which was time of cooking and thus, the trial Court
rightly observed that the possibility of accidental burns was not
ruled out. According to the counsel, the allegations of alleged
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
harassment are vague and not of such gravity which could be
calculated as cruelty. Thus, according to the counsel, the
reasons recorded by the trial Court are correct and when
acquittal has been recorded, the judgment may not be reversed.
7. I have already referred to the contents of the F.I.R.
Coming to the evidence of P.W.1 Ujwala Sirsat, the mother of the
victim, she stated that, after marriage, for about one and half
month the victim was treated well, but thereafter, she was being
beaten and there was demand of Rs.10,000/-. The trial Court
referred to the evidence of the other two relatives P.W.2
complainant Machindra and P.W.4 Walmik to observe that, these
witnesses did not refer to victim being beaten and that the F.I.R.
also did not state that the victim was at any time beaten. Thus,
the trial Court disbelieved P.W.1 regarding her evidence that the
victim was being beaten.
8. The evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 claims that there
was a demand of Rs.10,000/-. However, there is no evidence of
these witnesses to say as to for what purpose the amount was
being demanded. In the F.I.R., it was stated that for field and
purchasing sewing machine demand was made. However, the
complainant P.W.2 Machindra did not mention these factors in
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
the oral evidence.
9. Then there is evidence of P.W.1 Ujwala that the
victim had informed her that she was not provided clothes or oil
for her head and that she was being provided less food. In this
regard, P.W.2 complainant Machindra deposed that the victim
was not provided clothes and oil for head. P.W.4 deposed that,
the victim was not provided clothes or oil for her head or given
proper food. The trial Court, while dealing with the post mortem
notes, noticed that, the intestine were partly loaded. Column
No.21 of the post mortem report (Exh.29) refers to small
intestine and large intestine and their contents are recorded that
the same were partly loaded. The trial Court observed that, it
showed that the victim had taken food in the concerned morning.
Trial Court thus ruled out the fact that the victim was not being
given food.
10. The panchanama Exh.26 relating to the spot shows
that it was a small house having four "Patre" or tin sheets. It
was constructed with mud walls. Evidence of panch P.W.3
Mahadeo also shows that it was house of mud with some open
space in front. There is no material to show that the accused
persons were rich. Thus, how much weight should be given to
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
the grievance regarding clothes and oil for head is a matter of
consideration.
11. Judgment of the trial Court shows that, the trial Court
considered the following facts :-
(1) The evidence of P.W.1 regarding beating was not
supported in the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 4;
(2) The evidence did not show the purpose of the alleged
demand;
(3) Although the evidence of witnesses was that the victim
was sent back to the matrimonial home 5-6 times, there
was no evidence that when continuously demand was
not met, there was increase in harassment;
(4) Although Bhagwan, the father of victim had taken the
victim to Women's Grievances Cell, she was sent back
to the place of accused and it showed that the
harassment was not of serious nature;
(5) Prosecution failed to prove that the victim was
subjected to such cruelty as would drive her to commit
suicide;
(6) The burns to the person of the victim were on front side
and the evidence of doctor shows that there were deep
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
burns on the anterior aspect of chest, arms thighs and
rest of the burns were superficial. Trial Court found
that there was no evidence of kerosene oil found on the
body of the victim. Looking to the spot, the trial Court
observed that, the possibility of receiving burns
accidentally could not be ruled out;
(7) The commission of suicide itself was doubtful.
For such reasons and findings recorded by the trial
Court, it acquitted the accused persons.
12. I have gone through the evidence and find that the
observations of the trial Court have substance. It cannot be said
that the reasons recorded by the trial Court are not possible view
of the evidence. Although the trial Court observed in para 14 of
the judgment that the harassment was established, it again
referred to its findings that the evidence regarding beating was
unsupported; that there was no acceleration of harassment, that
purpose of demand was absent and thus, it went on to observe
that the nature of harassment was of lower level. What appears
is that, the trial Court found that the harassment was of not such
a nature that the person would commit suicide. There is
substance in this. The harassment alleged that proper clothing
Criminal Appeal No.456/2003
was not provided and oil for head was not provided. Looking to
the status of the accused persons, for victim, a daughter of
labourer like P.W.1 Ujwala, this cannot cannot be said to be
cruelty in the facts of this matter. The victim must be aware of
the background from which she came and the economic status of
the accused persons. The accused No.1 is also apparently and
admittedly a labourer. Further, I find substance in the
observations of the trial Court that keeping in view the evidence
of the doctor and spot panchanama the possibility of accidental
burns is not ruled out.
13. I do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment
of acquittal, which is a possible view of the evidence. There is no
substance in the appeal.
14. The appeal is dismissed. Bail bonds of the accused
are cancelled.
(A.I.S. CHEEMA, J.)
