Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... vs Shivhari Pralhad Bahe And Others on 16 March, 2016
Bench: B.R. Gavai
77-Cri.APPA-767-15 1/5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.767 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer
P.S. Telhara, Dist. Akola. ... Applicant.
-vs-
1. Shivhari Prahlad Bahe
Aged about 25 years,
Occ. Agriculturist,
2. Pralhad Namdeo Bahe,
Aged about 54 years,
Occ. Agriculturist,
3. Shrihari Prahlad Bahe
Aged adult, Occ. Education,
4. Sangita Gajanan Vasatkar
Aged about 25 years,
Occ. Household work,
R/o Nimbhora,
Tq. Telhara, Distt. Akola.
5. Mainabai Pralhad Bahe
(in S. T. No.9/12)
Aged about 50 years,
Occ. Labourer,
Nos. 1 to 3 and 5 R/o Adul,
Tq. Telhara, Dist. Akola. ... respondents.
Shri T. A. Mirza, Additional Public Prosecutor for applicant.
Shri V. B. Bhise, Advocate for respondents.
77-Cri.APPA-767-15 2/5
CORAM : B. R. GAVAI &
A.S.CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATE : MARCH 16, 2016
Oral Judgment : (Per A. S. Chandurkar, J.)
The present application has been filed by the State seeking leave
to file appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure so as
to challenge the judgment dated 20/10/2014 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Akot in Sessions Trial No.5 of 2010 whereby the
respondents herein stand acquitted for the offence punishable under Sections
498A, 304-B and Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the respondent No.1 Shivhari
was married with one Vaijayanti in April 2007. At the time of their marriage,
Rs.25,000/- had been given as dowry. Said Vaijayanti was treated well for
about 5-6 months after which the respondents started harassing her to again
bring Rs.25,000/- from her parents. It is the further case that for some
period said Vaijayanti stayed with her parents but came back to the
matrimonial home subsequently. In the month of May 2009 she had again
returned to her parental home and thereafter on 16/05/2009, the
respondent No.1 with his relatives had come to fetch her by assuring good
treatment. On 25/05/2009 at about 1.30 pm, the informant received
information that Vaijayanti had been admitted to a hospital and had expired
77-Cri.APPA-767-15 3/5
at about 12.45 p.m. due to Cardio respitory arrest.
3. On 29/05/2009, the father of said Vaijayanti lodged a report on
the basis of which the FIR came to be registered. On completion of
investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. On the respondents not
pleading guilty, they were tried for aforesaid offence and by the impugned
judgment they stand acquitted of the said charge.
4. Shri T. A. Mirza, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
State submitted that the learned Sessions Judge erred in acquitting the
respondents. He submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court were
not based on the evidence available on record and considering the fact that
Vaijayanti died under mysterious circumstances within seven years of her
marriage, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act would
arise. He submitted that on consideration of the entire evidence on record,
the only conclusion that could be arrived at was as regards the guilt of the
respondents.
5. On the other hand, Shri V. B. Bhise, the learned counsel for the
respondents supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the view
taken by the learned Sessions Judge was the only view that was possible on
the material that was available on record. He submitted that it cannot be said
77-Cri.APPA-767-15 4/5
that said view was either perverse or an impossible view. He therefore
sought for dismissal of appeal.
6. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, we have
perused the evidence on record. As the prosecution seeks leave to file the
appeal and challenge the acquittal of the respondents, it will have to be
examined as to whether the view as taken by the learned Sessions Judge is
either a possible view or whether the consideration of the evidence on record
is so perverse so as to warrant interference.
7. On the aspect of demand of dowry the prosecution has examined
PW-4-Santosh, PW-5-Rajaram and PW-6-Satish. It has been found by the
trial Court that their evidence is of hearsay nature and the allegations of
harassment and beating are vague in nature. It has been observed that said
evidence does not inspire confidence. It has been further observed that the
evidence with regard to the financial condition of the respondents and on the
point of demand of dowry was not consistent. It is also to be noted that
there was considerable and unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. Though
the incident occurred on 25/05/2009, the FIR was lodged by the informant
on 29/05/2009. This delay of four days has not been satisfactorily
explained. The statement of PW-5-Rajaram who was the member of the
family was recorded only on 21/06/2009 and he has also stated that he had
77-Cri.APPA-767-15 5/5
not spoken to anybody about the deceased being subjected to cruelty at the
hands of the respondents. Similarly no independent witness from the
locality had been examined though it was admitted by PW-8-Investigating
Officer that he had enquired with the neighbours of the respondents in that
regard. It is on this basis that the trial Court has found that in absence of any
independent corroboration of the case of the prosecution, the guilt of the
respondents was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.
8. In the light of aforesaid, the conclusion arrived at by the trial
Court that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the respondents
beyond reasonable doubt especially when the evidence on record did not
inspire confidence does not deserve interference. It cannot be said that the
view as taken is either perverse or that the same is an impossible view. In
that view of the matter, the application seeking leave has no merit. Hence
the Criminal Application and the Criminal Appeal are dismissed. There
would be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Asmita
