Bombay High Court
Tanaji Dattu Bajbalkar And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 May, 2016
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.919 OF 2009
1) Tanaji Dattu Bajbalkar
Age-30 occu: Agri
2) Sarubai Dattu Bajbalkar
Age:50 years, Occu: Agri.
All R/o. Tippehalli, Taluka-Sangola,
District- Solapur
Presently in Yerwada Jail, Pune. ...Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
through P.I. Sangola Police Station,
Sangola.
Tal. Sangola, Dist: Solapur ...Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.898 OF 2009
1) Uttam Krushna Bajbalkar
Age-55 years, Occ: Agri.
2) Sou. Mandabai Uttam Bajbalkar
Age -50 years, Occ: Household
All R/o. Tippehalli, Taluka-Sangola,
District- Solapur
Presently in Yerwada Jail, Pune. ...Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
through P.I. Sangola Police Station,
Sangola.
Tal. Sangola, Dist: Solapur ...Respondent
pps 1/41
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 08/05/2016 00:01:04 :::
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
Mrs. P.U. Badadare for the Appellants in Cri. Appeal No.919 of
2009.
Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar for the Appellant in Cri.Appeal No.898 of
2009.
Mrs. A.S. Pai, A.P.P. for the Respondent -State.
CORAM: SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 17th March, 2016.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL, 2016
JUDGMENT [PER : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.]:
1. The Appellants were prosecuted in Sessions Case No.74 of
2008 for offences under sections 498 A and 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC.
By judgment and order dated 31.7.2009 the learned Sessions
Judge, Pandharpur, convicted and sentenced them to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years each and to pay
a fine of Rs.500/- each i/d further imprisonment for a period of one
month each for the offence under section 498A IPC. The
Appellants have been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment
for life and to pay fine amount of Rs.500/- each i/d further
imprisonment for one month each for the offence punishable
under section 302 r/w. 34 of the IPC. Being aggrieved by the
conviction and sentence the Appellants have filed this appeal.
pps 2/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
2. The brief facts necessary to decide these appeals are as
under:-
The Appellant No.1 Tanaji is the husband of deceased
Sanjubai. Whereas the Appellant No.2, Sarubai is mother in law of
the deceased and Appellant Nos.1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.898
of 2009 are the family members of the Appellant No.1-Tanaji. The
marriage between Appellant No.1-Tanaji and the deceased
Sanjubai was solemnized sometime in the month of June, 2002
and since her marriage she was residing in her matrimonial house
along with her husband and in-laws. A girl child was born from the
said wedlock about a year and half prior to the incident.
3. It is alleged that said Sanjubai was treated well for initial
period of six months. However, thereafter she was subjected to ill
treatment because of her dark complexion and looks. The
Appellants accused her that she would not be able to bear a child.
It is alleged that Sanjubai had complained to her father, brother
and other family members that she was being assaulted over
trivial issues. Said Sanjubai did not lodge any complaint as she
had to live with her husband and his family members.
4. The case of the prosecution is that that about 2 and half
pps 3/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
months prior to the incident the deceased Sanjubai had told her
parents that the Appellant No.1 Tanaji and his family members
were demanding Rs.20,000/- for construction of house. The father
of Sanjubai gave Rs.20,000/- to the Appellants. About eight days
prior to the incident the deceased once against came to her
parental house crying and told that the appellants had demanded
Rs.1 lakh and that they had threatened to kill her if their demand
was not fulfilled. The father of Sanjubai expressed his inability to
meet the demand and sent her back to her matrimonial house.
5. On 14.5.2008 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased Sanjubai
came to her parental house and complained that her husband
Tanaji had assaulted her by a cane stick. Her face, hands and legs
were swollen. PW4 Dattatraya, brother of Sanjubai took her to the
house of Dhondiram Narale, the maternal uncle of Appellant No.1-
Tanaji and informed him about the incident of assault. Said
Dhondiram told him that he was unable to intervene in the matter
and advised them to settle the dispute amongst themselves.
6. On the same day at about 5 p.m. Sanjubai went to her
matrimonial house to feed her daughter. Immediately thereafter
PW4 and the other family members of Sanjubai heard loud noise
and screaming from the house of Sanjubai. When they went to her
pps 4/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
matrimonial house, they saw Tanaji assaulting Sanjubai with a
cane stick and her mother-in-law and the other Appellants herein
assaulting her by kicks and blows. On seeing the family members
of Sanjubai, the Appellant Tanaji dragged her near a tank and
banged her head on rocky surface. Sanjubai was unconscious and
bleeding through nose and mouth. She was taken to a hospital at
Junoni. Since her condition was critical she was referred to Mission
Hospital at Miraj. She expired on 16.5.2008. PW4 therefore lodged
the FIR against the appellants for subjecting Sanjubai to cruelty
and committing her murder.
7. PW 15- Prashant Sampate, Asstt. P.I. recorded the FIR and
registered the crime. PW-20 Tukaram Jamadar, P.S.I. visited the
place of the incident and conducted the spot panchnama exh.16.
He arrested the appellants and on 18.5.2008, pursuant to the
disclosure statement made by Tanaji, he recovered the velu (cane)
stick. He recorded the statements of the witnesses. Upon
completion of the investigation, he filed a charge-sheet against
the Appellants for offences under sections 498 A and 302 r/w. 34
of the IPC.
pps 5/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
8. Charges for offences punishable under section 498 A and 302
r/w. 34 of the IPC were framed and explained to the Appellants/ac-
cused, who pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
9. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 20
witnesses. The statements of the Appellants were recorded under
section 313 Cr.PC. The appellants denied all the incriminating
material put to them. Relying upon the testimony of the eye
witnesses, viz. PW4, 5 and 6 the Lnd sessions judge held the
Appellants guilty of the offences under sections 498 A and 302 r/w.
34 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced as stated above.
10. Mrs. P.U. Badadare the learned counsel for the Appellants in
Cri. Appeal No.919 of 2009 and Mr. P.R. Arjunwadkar, the learned
counsel for the Appellants in Cri. Appeal No.898 of 2009 have
submitted that the deceased was known to the Appellants prior to
the marriage and as such there was no question of subjecting her
to cruelty because of her colour or looks. The Lnd Counsels for the
Appellants have further submitted that there is no cogent
evidence to prove the demand of dowry. It is submitted that the
appellants nos. 3 and 4 are residing in a separate house and have
been falsely implicated.
pps 6/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
11. The Lnd Counsels for the appellants have further submitted
that the alleged incident as per the medical history, had occurred
at 4pm. the testimony of PW7 reveals that PW4 was at Junoni at
4pm. In the light of these facts, the Lnd Counsel contends that it
is doubtful whether PW4 had in fact witnessed the incident as
deposed.
12. It is canvassed that there is no cogent evidence to prove that
the injuries sustained by Sanjubai were caused by Velu stick or by
banging her head on the stone. The Lnd Counsels have submitted
that it is highly impossible for any person to lift a woman and bang
her head on the ground as alleged. It is submitted that the fact
that there were no external head injuries further falsifies the case
of the prosecution.
13. The learned counsels for the Appellants claim that death of
Sanjubai was not homicidal. They have submitted that the medical
opinion that the injury could be caused by banging of head on a
rocky surface, is sans any reasons. They have submitted that the
prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants had inflicted
injury on Sanjubai with an intention to cause her death or with the
knowledge that such act was likely to cause her death.
pps 7/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
14. Mrs. Pai, the learned APP for the Respondent -State has
submitted that the testimony of PW 4 and the other eye witnesses
amply proves that the Appellants had subjected the deceased to
cruelty. She has submitted that the evidence on record proves
that the deceased was assaulted about 8 days prior to the
incident. The learned APP has further submitted that the evidence
of the eye witnesses amply proves that the Appellants herein had
committed murder of Sanjubai.
15. We have
perused the records and considered the
submissions advanced by the learned counsels for the Appellants
and the learned APP for the Respondent -State.
16. Before we delve factual aspects, it would be relevant to
reproduce Section 498A IPC.
"498A. Husband or relative of husband of a
woman subjecting her to cruelty.- Whoever, being
the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation.- For the purpose of this Section,
"cruelty" means-
(a) Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as
is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health (whether mental or physical) of the
woman; or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
pps 8/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related
to her to meet such demand.
A plain reading of Section 498A IPC reveals that the section
postulates two types of cruelty, i.e. (i) wilful conduct of a nature
which is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or health. (ii) harassment with
a view to coercing her or her relatives to meet unlawful demand of
any property or valuable security or on account of her failure or
of any person related to her to meet such demand. Having
charged the Appellants for the offence under section 498A IPC,
onus was on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt
that the Appellant no.1 as the husband and the other Appellants
as the relatives of the Appellant no.1 had subjected Sanjubai to
'cruelty' as defined in the Explanation to Section 498A IPC.
17. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that
Sanjubai was a resident of Satki Vasti, which is a small hamlet with
10 to 15 houses. The Appellants were residing in the same
locality. Both families were known to each other and were on
regular visiting terms. It is in evidence that Sarubai, the Appellant
No.2, had proposed that said Sanjubai should marry her son, the
Appellant No.1-Tanaji. The parents and brothers of Sanjubai
pps 9/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
accepted the proposal and accordingly the marriage of Sanjubai
and Tanaji was solemnized on 2.6.2002. Since her marriage the
deceased had been residing in her matrimonial house, which is
close to her parental house.
18. The case of the prosecution is that Sanjubai was treated well
for about six months of her marriage. Thereafter she was ill-
treated and constantly taunted because of her dark complexion
and burn scar on her chest. The family of the deceased Sanjubai
have also leveled allegations of demand of money. To substantiate
these allegations the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of
PW4 Dattatraya, PW5 Manisha, PW6 Sujata and PW7 Kaka Sopan,
brother, sisters-in-law and the maternal uncle of the deceased.
19. PW-4 Dattatraya Tayappa Atpadkar, the elder brother of the
deceased Sanjubai has deposed that accused had treated Sanjubai
well for about six months from the date of her marriage. He has
deposed that subsequently when Sanjubai had come to her
parental home for festival she had complained that her husband
and in-laws were subjecting her to cruelty because she was of dark
complexion and had a burn scar on her chest. PW4 has further
stated that Sanjubai had also complained that the Appellants
/accused were taunting her that she would not be able to bear a
pps 10/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
child. He has deposed that his father and maternal uncle Kaka
Sopan Narale and some others had called a meeting and had tried
to persuade the in-laws of the deceased Sanjubai not to ill-treat
her.
20. PW4 has deposed that about four months prior to the
incident the Appellants had severely assaulted Sanjubai as she
was frequently visiting her parental house for getting milk. He has
stated that they did not lodge any complaint against the
Appellants as Sanjubai had to cohabit with her husband. He has
further stated that about 2 and ½ months prior to the incident
Sanjubai had come to her parental home and informed them that
the Appellants had told her to bring Rs.20,000/- for construction of
the house. PW4 has stated that his father had given her
Rs.20,000/-. About 8 days prior to the incident Sanjubai came to
her parental home crying and told them that her in-laws were
demanding Rs.1 lakh and that they had threatened kill her if the
demand was not fulfilled. PW-4 has stated that he and his father
told Sanjubai that they did not have the money to give to the
accused and they persuaded her to go to her matrimonial house.
PW4 has denied the suggestion that the accused had not
subjected Sanjubai to cruelty because she was of dark complexion
or because she used to visit her parental house to bring milk. He
pps 11/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
has also denied the suggestion that the accused had never
demanded any money for construction of house.
21. PW-5 Manisha, is the sister-in-law of Sanjubai. She has
stated that Sanjubai was married to Appellant No.1 about 5 years
prior to the incident and she was living in her matrimonial house
alongwith the Appellants /accused. This witness has also stated
that Sanjubai was treated well for about 6 months after her
marriage. She has stated that once when Sanjubai had come
home she had informed them that she was being harassed
because she was of dark complexion and since she had a burn
scar on her chest. They had also accused her that she would not
bear a child. She has stated that two and half months prior to the
incident the Appellant No.1 had started constructing a house and
that he had told Sanjubai to get Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents
and had threatened to kill her in case she failed to bring the
money. PW-5 further deposed that they were unable to meet the
demand of Appellant No.1 and the father of Sanjubai persuaded
her to return to her matrimonial home.
22. PW-6 Sujata is also the sister-in-law of the deceased
Sanjubai. This witness has deposed that about two months prior
to the incident, the Appellant No.1 had sent Sanjubai to bring
pps 12/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
amount of Rs.1 lakh from her parents for construction of house.
She has deposed that the father and the brothers of Sanjubai had
told her that they were unable to meet the demands of PW 1 and
had persuaded her to return her matrimonial house.
23. PW-7 Kaka Sopan is the maternal uncle of deceased
Sanjubai. He has deposed that Sanjubai was married to Appellant
No.1 Tanaji about 5 years prior to the incident. Since her marriage
she was residing in her matrimonial house along with the
Appellant No.1 and other accused persons. He has stated that
Sanjubai was treated well for six months after her marriage and
thereafter she was being ill treated because of the dark
complexion and she had a scar on her neck. He has stated that he
along with Narayan Pandurang Mohite and Dhondiba Dayappa
Narle had gone to the house of the Appellant No.1 and had
persuaded them to not to ill treat Sanjubai. The Appellants did not
change their behavior towards Sanjubai despite their intervention.
This witness has also stated that the Appellant No.1 had sent
Sanjubai home to get Rs.20,000/- from her father and accordingly
father of Sanjubai had paid him Rs.20,000/-. Subsequently, the
Appellant No.1 demanded Rs.1 lakhs but father of Sanjubai was
unable to pay the money.
pps 13/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
24. The aforesaid evidence amply proves that the deceased
Sanjubai was married to the Appellant No.1 in the year 2002 and
since her marriage she was residing in her matrimonial house. PW-
4, PW-5 and PW-6 have stated that the Appellants used to harass
Sanjubai because of her dark complexion. However, the testimony
of these witnesses clearly indicates that both families were
residing in the same locality and were known to each other. The
evidence of PW4 indicates that the Appellant no 2, used to visit
their house even prior to the marriage of Sanjubai and Tanaji. It is
also on record that the Appellant no.2 had proposed that Sanjubai
should marry her son Tanaji. This proposal was accepted by the
family of Sanjubai and accordingly the marriage of the Appellant
no.1 Tanaji and Sanjuai was solemnized on2.6.2002. It is therefore
evident that the Appellants knew Sanjubai even prior to the
marriage and despite her colour and complexion they had
proposed that she should marry Tanaji. This fact creates a
reasonable doubt as to whether Sanjubai was in fact harassed or
taunted because of her dark complexion.
25. It is also to be noted that Sanjubai and Tanaji had a girl child
from the said wedlock. Under the circumstances, there was no
question of taunting her that she would not bear a child and / or
threatening her that they would get Tanaji remarried. Furthermore,
pps 14/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
there are material contradictions in the evidence as regards
demand of money. The evidence of PW4 that the accused had
assaulted Sanjubai about four months prior to the incident and
that about two and half months prior to the incident the accused
had sent Sanjubai to her parental home to bring Rs. 20000/ is not
corroborated by PW5 and PW6. It is also pertinent to note that
according to PW4 the demand for Rs. 100000/- was made by the
accused about eight days prior to the incident whereas PW5 and
PW6 have claimed that such demand was made about two and
half month prior to the incident. PW7 had no personal knowledge
about such demand or payment.
26. The evidence of the above referred witnesses is inconsistent
as each of these witnesses has given a different version.
Furthermore the allegations of demand of money are quite vague
and unspecific besides being inconsistent. Other than the general
and vague allegations of the brother, sisters-in-law and maternal
uncle of the deceased there is no evidence on record to establish
that the appellants had raised a demand of money or that they
had subjected Sanjubai to harassment with a view to coerce her
or her family to meet the unlawful demand. The prosecution has
thus failed to establish that Sanjubai was subjected to cruelty as
postulated in the explanation to section 498 A IPC. Consequently
pps 15/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
the conviction and sentence under this section cannot be
sustained.
27. The Appellants are also alleged to have committed murder of
Sanjubai. PW-4 deposed that on 14.5.2008 at about 7.00 a.m.
Sanjubai had come to her parental home crying. She had told
them that her husband and in-laws had severely assaulted her
with a velu (cane) stick since she had not filled cow dung manure
in the cart. He has further deposed that the face, hands and legs
of Sanjubai were swollen. He therefore, took Sanjubai to
Dhondiram Narale, the maternal uncle of the Applicant No.1. He
told him about the incident and showed him the injuries inflicted
on Sanjubai. Said Dhondiram Narale told him that the Appellant
No.1 Tanaji does not listen to him and thus refused to intervene.
PW4 therefore, returned home with Sanjubai.
28. PW4 has deposed that sometime later, Sanjubai told him that
she was going home as her daughter would be hungry and crying.
He has further stated that soon thereafter they heard her cries.
He and his family members rushed to the house of Sanjubai and
they saw the Appellant No.1- Tanaji beating her with a Velu Stick
(cane stick). He has deposed that the other Appellants were
assaulting her by kicks and fist blows. On seeing them the
pps 16/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
appellants dragged Sanjubai near a water tank. PW-4 told the
appellants that Sanjubai was pregnant and requested them not to
beat her. He has stated that the Appellant No.1-Tanaji lifted
Sanjubai and banged her on the rock thrice. The other appellants
Sarubai Bajbalkar and Mandabai Bajbalkar also stated that PW4
should not be spared and he too should be killed. Thereafter the
appellant Uttam caught him by his neck. PW-4 has stated that
Sanjubai was unconscious and was bleeding through her nose. He
carried her on his shoulders to her parental home and thereafter
took her to the hospital. He has stated that Sanjubai succumbed
to the injuries on 16.5.2008. He therefore, lodged a FIR against
the appellants for committing murder of his sister Sanjubai. It is
pertinent to note that PW-4 had not stated in the FIR that Sanjubai
had told him that the appellants Nos.2 to 5 had assaulted her with
kicks and fist blows. The omission in this regard was elicited in
his cross examination. He has denied the suggestion that the
appellants had not assaulted Sanjubai and that he has falsely
implicated the appellants because of previous enemity.
29. PW-5 Manisha, the sister-in-law of deceased Sanjubai has
deposed that on 14.5.2008 at about 7.00 a.m. Sanjubai came
crying and told them that the Appellant No.1 Tanaji had assaulted
her with a velu stick as she had not filled cow dung manure in the
pps 17/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
cart. PW-4 took Sanjubai to the house of Dhondiram Narale, the
maternal uncle of Tanaji. PW-4 and Sanjubai returned home after
some while and told them that said Dhondiram had refused to
intervene alleging that the Appellant No.1 Tanaji does not listen to
him. She has deposed that thereafter Sanjubai went to her
matrimonial house to feed her daughter and immediately
thereafter they heard her cries. She alongwith her brother in law
PW-4 Dattatraya and others went to the house of the Appellants
and saw Appellant No.1 assaulting Sanjubai with a Velu stick. She
has further deposed that appellant Nos.2 to 5 were also assaulting
Sanjubai by kicks and blows. She has deposed that thereafter
Sanjubai was dragged towards the water tank and her head was
banged on a rocky surface. She has stated that Sanjubai became
unconscious and was bleeding through her nose. PW-4 Dattatray
took her to Junoni Hospital, from where she was referred to Mission
Hospital, Miraj. She has deposed that Sanjubai died on 18.5.2008.
30. PW 6 Sujata, the sister-in-law of the deceased has deposed
that on 14.5.2008 at about 7.00 a.m. the deceased Sanjubai had
come to her parental house crying and complained that the
appellant No.1 had assaulted her with a cane stick. She has
stated that her husband PW-4 took Sanjubai to Dhondiba Narale,
maternal uncle of the Appellant No.1 but said Dhondiba Narale had
pps 18/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
refused to intervene and told them to settle the dispute amongst
themselves. She has further deposed that thereafter Sanjubai had
returned home to feed her daughter. She has deposed that
immediately after Sanjubai went to her matrimonial house they
heard cries of Sanjubai and hence, she along with her husband
(PW4) and others went to the house of the Appellant No.1. They
saw the Appellant No.1 assaulting Sanjubai with a cane stick and
the other Appellants assaulting her by kicks and blows. She has
stated that the Appellant No.1 dragged Sanjubai towards the tank
and lifted her and banged her head thrice on a rocky surface. She
has stated that PW-4 told the Appellant No.1 that Sanjubai was
pregnant and requested him not to assault her. She has stated
that Sanjubai was unconscious and was bleeding through her
nose. Thereafter PW-4 lifted her and brought her home and took
her to a Doctor at Junoni Hospital. She was shifted to Wanless
Mission Hospital, Miraj. She expired on 18.5.2008.
31. The testimony of these witnesses reveals that on 14.5.2008
during morning hours Sanjubai had come crying to her paternal
home and complained that the Appellant no 1 had assaulted her
with a cane stick over a trivial issue of not filling cow dung manure
in the cart. The testimony of these witnesses discloses that the
face, hands and legs of Sanjubai were swollen. PW4 had taken
pps 19/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
Sanjubai to Dhondiba Narale, the maternal uncle of the Appellant
no.1 and informed him about the incident. Said Narale told PW4
that the Appellant no.1 does not listen to him. Since he refused to
intervene, PW4 and Sanjubai returned home. Later in the day,
concerned that her minor daughter would be hungry, Sanjubai
returned home to feed her daughter.
32. The evidence of these witnesses clearly indicates that on
hearing cries of Sanjubai, they rushed to her matrimonial home.
They saw the Appellant no 1 assaulting her with a cane stick and
the other Appellants assaulting her with kicks and blows. The
evidence of PW4 in particular reveals that he had requested the
Appellants not to assault Sanjubai since she was pregnant. The
testimony of these witnesses further indicates that on seeing them
the Appellant no.1 had dragged Sanjubai near a tank and banged
her head thrice on a rocky surface. Sanjubai had become
unconscious and was bleeding from mouth and nose.
33. PW-8 Radhika resides at a distance of 300 feet away from the
house of the Appellants. She has stated that on the date of the
incident, she had heard some noise and when she came out of the
house she saw the Appellants, Sanjubai and her family members
near the tank. She had stated that Sanjubai was bleeding through
pps 20/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
nose and mouth and that she had seen PW-4 lifting Sanjubai and
taking her towards his house. In her cross examination omission
has been elicited regarding bleeding of Sanjubai through nose and
mouth. She has admitted that the Appellant No.1-Tanaji had filed
a criminal case against her husband. She has stated that the said
case was amicably settled.
34. PW8 Radhika had not witnessed the incident of assault. Her
testimony reveals that she had reached the spot after the incident.
Nonetheless she had seen the Appellants as well as the family
members Sanjubai near the tank. She had also seen PW4 lifting
and carrying Sanjubai home. Her testimony therefore corroborates
that the incident had occurred near the tank and further proves
presence of the appellants and the aforestated eye witnesses at
the place of the incident .
35. PW-9 Sharda Bajbalkar resides at 300 ft away from the
house of the Appellants. She has stated that the Appellants
accused are her distant relatives. She has stated that on the date
of the incident, she had gone to the field to graze her sheep. She
heard cries of the family members of Sanjubai. Hence, she came
to the place of the incident. She saw Sanjubai lying in the house
and that she was bleeding through her mouth and nose.
pps 21/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
36. PW10 has deposed that he used to drive Mahindra Jeep of
Appasaheb Mane. He has deposed that one day while he was at
Sat Vasti PW4 had told him that his sister had sustained injuries in
a quarrel and had requested him to take her to the hospital. PW10
has deposed that he had taken the injured Sanjubai to the hospital
of Dr. Kamble at Junoni.
37. PW7, Kaka Sopan, the maternal uncle of PW4 Dattatraya,
has deposed that on 14.5.2008 at about 4.00 p.m. while he was in
his shop at Junoni, PW-4 came to his shop and told him that the
Appellant No.1 had severely assaulted Sanjubai with a Velu stick.
PW4 further told him that the Appellant no.1 had lifted Sanjubai
and banged her head on a rocky surface. He has stated that PW-4
had told him that he had brought Sanjubai to the Hospital of Dr.
Kamble. Thereafter he along with PW-4 went to the Hospital to see
Sanjubai. He has stated that Sanjubai was bleeding through nose
and had a head injury and she was unconscious. He has stated
that he arranged for a vehicle and took Sanjubai to Mission
Hospital at Miraj for further treatment.
38. The testimony of the afore stated eye witnesses indicates that
the incident had occurred sometime after 4 pm. The presence of
pps 22/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
PW4 at the place of the incident is sought to be doubted in view of
the statement of PW10 that PW4 had come to his shop at 4 pm. It
is on record that Junoni is barely at a distance of 5 kms from the
place of the incident. The testimony of PW10 indicates that he had
brought Sanjubai from Satkivasti to Junoni at the request of PW4.
The evidence of PW5 and PW6 which is duly corroborated by PW 8
also proves that PW4 had carried Sanjubai from the place of the
incident and later taken her to the hospital. In the light of the said
unimpeachable evidence, there is no reason to doubt the presence
of PW4 at the place of the incident. Furthermore it is well known
that the villagers normally give time by approximation. Hence
minor variation in the timings as deposed by the PW7 is natural
and does not affect the prosecution version.
39. It is to be noted that though the incident had occurred on
14.5.2008 the FIR came to be registered on 16.5.2008. The
evidence on record indicates that Sanjubai was unconscious and
was battling for life. The family members of Sanjubai would
therefore be busy attending to her rather than rushing to the
police. The FIR was lodged only after the death of Sanjubai.
Under the circumstances, the delay of two days in lodging the FIR
is inconsequential.
pps 23/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
40. It is submitted that the assertion of the witnesses that the
appellant no.1 had lifted Sanjubai and banged her head thrice on a
rocky surface is a highly exaggerated statement particularly in
view of the nature of the injuries sustained by Sanjubai. In State
of UP vs. Naresh & Ors. 2011 Vol 4 SCC 324 the Apex Court
after considering several other decisions has held as under:
" 25. In all criminal cases, normal discrepancies
are bound to occur in the depositions of witness-
es due to normal errors of observation, namely,
errors of memory due to lapse of time or due to
mental disposition such as shock and horror at
the time of occurrence. Where the omissions
amount to a contradiction, creating a serious
doubt about the truthfulness of the witness and
other witnesses also make material improvement
while deposing in the court, such evidence can-
not be safe to rely upon. However, minor contra-
dictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or im-
provements on trivial matters which do not af-
fect the core of the prosecution case, should not
be made a ground on which the evidence can be
rejected in its entirety.
The court has to form its opinion about the credi-
bility of the witness and record a finding as to
whether his deposition inspires confidence.
"Exaggerations per se do not render the evi-
dence brittle. But it can be one of the factors to
test credibility of the prosecution version, when
the entire evidence is put in a crucible for being
tested on the touchstone of credibility." There-
fore, mere marginal variations in the statements
of a witness cannot be dubbed as improvements
as the same may be elaborations of the state-
ment made by the witness earlier. The omissions
which amount to contradictions in material par-
ticulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially
affect the trial or core of the prosecution's case,
pps 24/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
render the testimony of the witness liable to be
discredited.
41. These principles have been reiterated in Gangabhavani v.
Rayapati Venkat Reddy & Ors. 2013 AIR SC 3681. In the
instant case, the evidence of PW4, PW5 and PW6 is reliable and
trustworthy. Suffice it to state that minor variations, contradictions
or exaggerations cannot be a ground to reject their testimony
particularly when these eyewitnesses have corroborated each
other on all material facts and have remained consistent and
coherent on core issues such as sequence of events leading to the
incident of assault, the place of occurrence, the weapon used and
the manner of assault. The evidence of these witnesses therefore
proves beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant no1 had
whacked Sanjubai with a cane and thereafter banged her head on
a rocky surface despite being told that she was pregnant, whereas
the other Appellants had assaulted her with kicks and blows. As a
result Sanjubai became unconscious and was bleeding from nose
and mouth. She was immediately taken to Dr. Kamble hospital at
Junoni for treatment.
42. PW-13 Dr. Suvarna Kamble, is a medical /private practitioner
at Junoni hospital. She has deposed that on 14.5.2008 at about 6
to 6.15 p.m. patient by name Sanjubai was brought to OPD by her
pps 25/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
brother and mother. She examined the patient. The patient was
unconscious and was bleeding through nose. She had injuries on
her knees and legs. Her blood pressure and pulse was not normal.
Since the condition of the patient was critical, the patient was
shifted to Sangli Civil Hospital.
43. PW 11 Dr. Marina Thomas, the Assistant Medical Officer,
Wanless Hospital, Miraj, has deposed that Sanjubai was admitted
in the hospital on 14.5.2008 at about 8.30 p.m.
ig She was
unconscious. Her relatives had given the history of assault by stick
on head and other parts of the body. On examination her pupils
were found to be dilated and fixed, respiration was laboured and
she had decerilbrate type rigidity. There was abrasion on the left
cheek and bluish discolouration over the neck. She was shifted to
ICU and all investigation including CT scan was done. The CT scan
was suggestive of left side subdural hematoma. The patient was
taken to emergency for craniotomy and evacuation of subdural
collection. Post operatively she was put on ventilator. On
16.5.2008 said Sanjubai went into Bradicardia and hypo tension.
Despite giving required treatment, said Sanjubai expired on
16.5.2008. PW-11 issued death certificate (Exh.34) certifying that
death of Sanjubai was due to severe head injury with intra-cranial
Haemorrhage with cardio respiratory arrest. She has stated that
pps 26/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
the injuries referred to in the death certificate could be caused if
the person is lifted and banged with force on any rocky surface.
The body was sent to civil hospital for post mortem for
ascertaining the exact cause of death.
44. PW-12 Dr. Shailaja Hindurao Kundale, Medical Officer,
Government Medical College and Hospital at Miraj has deposed
that on 16.5.2008 they had received the body of Sanjubai in the
hospital alongwith the inquest panchanama for post mortem. She
and Dr. Sonavale conducted the post mortem over the body of
deceased Sanjubai. PW-12 has deposed that she had noticed the
following external injuries over the body:
(i) Multiple minute abrasions over both parietal
region and occipital region of size .5 cm x .5
cm dark brownish in colour.
(ii) Sutured wound over the left parietal region
8 stitches present, there was evidence of
oedema.
(iii) Abrasion over the left leg in lower third part
of size .5 x.5cm. Dark brownish in colour.
(iv)Abrasion over the right knee joint of size .5
x.2 cm. dark brownish in colour.
pps 27/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
45. PW12- Dr. Shailaja further deposed that all the injuries were
antemortem in nature. On internal examination following
observations were recorded:
(I) Haematoma over the left parieto temporal region
of size 4 cm x 3 cm.
(ii) There was no fracture of elbow.
(iii) Brain was congested and oedamatous.
(iv)There was evidence of subdural haemorrhage
i.e. intracranial haemorahage.
(v) Plura was congested. Larynx, Trachea and
Bronchi were congested.
(vi) Sanjubai was three months pregnant.
46. PW12 Dr Shailaja has opined that the death of Sanjubai was
due to head injury. She has produced the post mortem report,
which is at Exh.39 as well as her opinion as to cause of death at
Exh. 40. She has opined that the head injury, which is described in
column No.19 of post mortem report was sufficient in ordinary
course of nature to cause death. The medical evidence therefore,
proves that the death of Sanjubai was homicidal in nature and that
she had died on account of the head injury.
47. The medical evidence therefore proves that Sanjubai had
pps 28/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
suffered subdural haematoma and had expired as a result of the
said head injury. It is true that there was no corresponding visible
external head injury. It is however to be borne in mind that the
external appearance of the impact would very often depend on the
nature of the weapon used or as in the instant case the surface
over which the head was hit i.e whether the surface was smooth
and even or had jagged edges. Similarly, whether the point of
impact was protected by hair or by any other head gear would also
be a decisive factor. ig In the instant case PW11 Dr. Marina has
opined that the said injury could be caused by hitting of head on a
rocky surface. The said opinion has virtually gone unchallenged.
No evidence was elicited to show that such injury could not have
been caused by hitting the head on a rocky or hard surface,
without there being lacertion, contusion or any other visible head
injury. Under the circumstances, the prosecution case cannot be
doubted merely because said Sanjubai had not suffered any
corresponding external head injury.
48. The medical evidence therefore corroborates the ocular
evidence and supports the case of the prosecution that Sanjubai
had died due to the head injury inflicted by the appellant no.1. It is
true that the relatives of the deceased Sanjubai had given history
of assault by a stick whereas in the evidence before the court the
pps 29/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
eye witnesses have categorically deposed about assault by stick
as well as banging of head of the deceased on a rocky surface. As
stated earlier, the medical evidence is consistent with ocular
evidence. Under these circumstances, the fact that the relatives
had not given a detail history would not falsify ocular evidence
particularly when the medical evidence does not rule out the
possibility of the head injury being caused by hitting of head on
rocky surface or when the medical evidence is not inconsistent
with ocular evidence.
49. It is pertinent to note that Sanjubai had died two days after
the incident as a result of one fatal injury. The medical evidence
states that the head injury inflicted on Sanjubai was sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Hence, the moot
question is whether the offence can attract exception 4 to Section
300 IPC.
Section 300 reads as under:
"Section 300: Except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act
by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or--
xxxxxx
Thirdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, or--
pps 30/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
xxxxx
Exception 4 to section 300 reads as under:
Exception 4.--Culpable homicide is not murder if
it is committed without premeditation in a
sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel and without the offender having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
Explanation It is immaterial in such cases which
party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
50. We may refer to the landmark judgment of the Apex Court in
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 wherein the
Apex Court has held as under:
"To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the
following facts before it can bring a case under
S.300, 3rdly " ; First, it must establish, quite
objectively, that a bodily injury is present ;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be
proved; These are purely objective investiga-
tions.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an
intention to inflict that particular bodily injury,
that is to say, that it was not accidental or
unintentional, or that some other kind of injury
was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be
present, the enquiry proceeds further and,
Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the
type just described made up of the three
elements set out above is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature. This part
of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential
and has nothing to do with the intention of the
offender.
pps 31/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
Once these four elements are established by the
prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the
prosecution throughout) the offence is murder
under S. 300, 3rdly. It does not matter that there
was no intention to cause death. It does not
matter that there was no intention even to cause
an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature (not that
there is any real distinction between the two). It
does not even matter that there is no knowledge
that an act of that kind will be likely to cause
death. Once the intention to cause the bodily in-
jury actually found to be present is proved, the
rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the
only question is whether, as a matter of purely
objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one
has a licence to run around inflicting injuries
that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature and claim that they are not
guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that
kind, they must face the consequences; and they
can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably
deduced that the injury was accidental or
otherwise unintentional."
51. The Apex Court in Pappu v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR
2006 (7) SCC 391 has held as under:
" 13. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if
death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in
a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have
been with the person killed. To bring a case
within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned
in it must be found. It is to be noted that the
'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to
make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there
must be no time for the passions to cool down
and in this case, the parties have worked
pps 32/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
themselves into a fury on account of the verbal
altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat
between two and more persons whether with or
without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate
any general rule as to what shall be deemed to
be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and
whether a quarrel is sudden or not must
necessarily depend upon the proved facts of
each case. For the application of Exception 4, it
is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden
quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must
further be shown that the offender has not taken
undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual
manner. The expression 'undue advantage' as
used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'.
14. It cannot be laid down as a rule of universal
application that whenever one blow is given,
Section 302 IPC is ruled out. It would depend
upon the weapon used, the size of it in some
cases, force with which the blow was given, part
of the body it was given and several such
relevant factors".
52. The Apex Court in Pulicherla Nagaraju @ Nagaraja
Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2006) 11 SCC 444 has
enumerated some of the circumstances relevant to finding out
whether there was any intention to cause death on the part of the
accused as under:
"...Therefore, the court should proceed to decide
the pivotal question of intention, with care and
caution, as that will decide whether the case falls
under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II.
Many petty or insignificant matters - plucking of a
fruit, straying of a cattle, quarrel of children,
utterance of a rude word or even an objectionable
glance, may lead to altercations and group
clashes culminating in deaths. Usual motives like
revenge, greed, jealousy or suspicion may be
pps 33/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
totally absent in such cases. There may be no
intention. There may be no pre-meditation. In fact,
there may not even be criminality. At the other
end of the spectrum, there may be cases of
murder where the accused attempts to avoid the
penalty for murder by attempting to put forth a
case that there was no intention to cause death. It
is for the courts to ensure that the cases of
murder punishable under Section are not
converted into offences punishable under Section
304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder, are treated as murder
punishable under Section 302. The intention to
cause death can be gathered generally from a
combination of a few or several of the following,
among other, circumstances :
(i) nature of the weapon used; (ii) whether the
weapon was carried by the accused or was picked
up from the spot; (iii) whether the blow is aimed
at a vital part of the body; (iv) the amount of
force employed in causing injury; (v) whether the
act was in the course of sudden quarrel or sudden
fight or free for all fight; (vi) whether the incident
occurs by chance or whether there was any pre-
meditation; (vii) whether there was any prior
enmity or whether the deceased was a stranger;
(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden
provocation, and if so, the cause for such
provocation; (ix) whether it was in the heat of
passion; (x) whether the person inflicting the
injury has taken undue advantage or has acted in
a cruel and unusual manner; (xi) whether the
accused dealt a single blow or several blows. The
above list of circumstances is, of course, not
exhaustive and there may be several other
special circumstances with reference to individual
cases which may throw light on the question of
intention..." (emphasis supplied)
53. Reverting to the case at hand, the deceased was the wife of
the Appellant no. 1. At the time of the incident she was three
months pregnant. The evidence on record indicates that the
pps 34/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
incident had not occurred on the spur of the moment or in a
sudden fight but was a sequel to the previous incident of assault
during early morning hours when the Appellant had whacked the
deceased with a cane stick over a trivial issue of not filling cow
dung manure in a cart. The second incident which finally
culminated in death of Sanjubai had occurred on the same day at
about 4 pm, when Sanjubai had returned home to feed her minor
daughter. Thus even assuming that the appellant was filled with
sudden passion of anger and lost self-control due to non filling of
cow dung manure in the cart, by the time the second incident
occurred, the Appellant had sufficient time to calm down and
regain dominion over the mind. The incident had not therefore
ensued in sudden fight or in the heat of passion.
54. The evidence further reveals that at the time of the incident
Sanjubai was three months pregnant. Despite PW4 pleading with
appellant no.1 not to assault her since she was pregnant, he had
assaulted Sanjubai, with a cane stick and thereafter banged her
head on a rocky surface till she became unconscious and started
bleeding from her mouth and nose. The medical evidence reveals
that the deceased had suffered multiple abrasions over both
parietal region as well as occipital region, which fact indicates that
though the death of Sanjubai was caused due to a single fatal
pps 35/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
injury, the accused had in fact inflicted several blows on her head.
We have no doubt in our mind that the appellant no.1 had
committed the crime in a cruel and unusual manner, taking undue
advantage of a defenseless pregnant woman, who had returned
home only to feed her minor daughter. Thus the case is not
covered by Exception 4 to section 300 IPC. Consequently the Lnd
Judge was justified in holding the Appellant no.1 guilty of offence
punishable under section 302 IPC.
55. Now coming to the complicity of the appellant no.2 Sarubai
(in Cri.Appeal No.919 of 2009) and the appellant nos.1 and 2 (in
Cri. Appeal No.898 of 2009), it is not in dispute that they had not
inflicted the fatal blow on the deceased. The only allegations
against these Appellants are that they had assaulted Sanjubai by
kicks and blows. Nonetheless, they have been held guilty of
offence under section 302 IPC with aid of section 34 IPC, which
reads as under:
"34. Acts done by several persons in
furtherence of common intention:- When a
criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherence of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone."
56. Section 34 IPC lays down the principle of constructive
liability, wherein the accused committing any act in furtherance of
pps 36/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
common intention of the other co -accused, is equally liable for
the acts committed by the co-accused. In order to hold the
accused vicariously liable for the acts of the other accused the
prosecution is required to prove that he shared the common
intention to commit the offence conjointly with another or the
other accused and that he actually participated in commission of
crime in one form or the other.
57. In Virendra Singh vs State Of M.P (2010) 8 SCC 407,
the Apex Court while considering the scope and object of section
34 IPC has held as under:
"18. The words "common intention" implies a pre-
arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to
the plan. It must be proved that the criminal act
was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged
plan. Common intention comes into force prior to
the commission of the act in point of time, which
need not be a long gap. Under this section a pre-
concert in the sense of a distinct previous plan is
not necessary to be proved. The common inten-
tion to bring about a particular result may well de-
velop on the spot as between a number of per-
sons, with reference to the facts of the case and
circumstances of the situation. Though common
intention may develop on the spot, it must, how-
ever, be anterior in point of time to the commis-
sion of the crime showing a pre- arranged plan
and prior concert. The common intention may de-
velop in course of the fight but there must be
clear and unimpeachable evidence to justify that
inference. This has been clearly laid down by this
Court in the case of Amrik Singh & Ors. v. State of
Punjab 1972 CrLJ 465 (SC).
xxxx
pps 37/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
19. The essence of the liability is to be found in
the existence of a common intention animating
the accused leading to the doing of a criminal act
in furtherance of such intention. Undoubtedly, it is
difficult to prove even the intention of an individu-
al and, therefore, it is all the more difficult to
show the common intention of a group of persons.
Therefore, in order to find whether a person is
guilty of common intention, it is absolutely neces-
sary to carefully and critically examine the entire
evidence on record. The common intention can be
spelt out only from the evidence on record.
21. Section 34 is not a substantive offence. It is
imperative that before a man can be held liable
for acts done by another, under the provisions of
this section, it must be established that there was
common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged
plan between the two and the person sought to
be so held liable had participated in some manner
in the act constituting the offence. Unless com-
mon intention and participation are both present,
this section cannot apply.
xxxx
45. The dominant feature of Section 34 is the
element of intention and participation in action.
This participation need not in all cases be by
physical presence. Common intention implies
acting in concert.
46. The essence of Section 34 IPC is a
simultaneous consensus of the minds of the
persons participating in criminal action to bring
about a particular result.
47. Section 34 IPC does not create any distinct
offence, but it lays down the principle of
constructive liability. Section 34 IPC stipulates that
the act must have been done in furtherance of the
common intention. In order to incur joint liability
for an offence there must be a pre-arranged and
pre- meditated concert between the accused
persons for doing the act actually done, though
there might not be long interval between the act
and the pre-meditation and though the plan may
pps 38/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
be formed suddenly. In order that Section 34 IPC
may apply, it is not necessary that the prosecution
must prove that the act was done by a particular or
a specified person. In fact, the section is intended
to cover a case where a number of persons act
together and on the facts of the case it is not
possible for the prosecution to prove as to which of
the persons who acted together actually
committed the crime. Little or no distinction exists
between a charge for an offence under a particular
section and a charge under that section read with
section 34."
58. In the instant case, as stated earlier the incident in ques-
tion was preceded by the incident of assault during morning ses-
sion at about 7.a.m. Though PW4 had stated that Sanjubai had
complained that these appellants had also assaulted her with kicks
and blows, no such statement was made in the FIR and an omis-
sion in this regard has been elicited in the cross examination of
this witness. Furthermore, the evidence of PW5 and PW6 also does
not indicate that the appellant nos.2 to 4 were involved in the first
incident of assault.
59. As regards the second incidence at 4 p.m., the evidence of
PW4, PW5 and PW6 reveals that the appellant no.1had assaulted
Sanjubai with a cane whereas the other appellants had assaulted
her by kicks and blows. There is no cogent and consistent
evidence to prove that these applicants were involved in dragging
Sanjubai to the water tank or that they had assaulted her in any
pps 39/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
manner when the appellant no.1 had dragged her to the water
tank and inflicted the fatal blow. There is no cogent and
conclusive evidence of prior meeting or a pre-arranged plan
between these appellants and the appellant no.1 to cause death of
Sanjubai. The evidence on record reveals that these appellants
had individually assaulted Sanjubai by kicks and blows. There
being no evidence of sharing of common intention, the acts of
these appellants constitute offence under section 323 IPC.
Consequently, the appellant nos.2 to 4 cannot be held vicariously
liable for the acts of the appellant no.1. Hence these appellants
cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 with the aid
of Section 34 of IPC.
60. Under the circumstances and in view of the discussion
supra, the appeals are partly allowed. The conviction and
sentence imposed against the appellants for offence under Section
498 A is hereby quashed and set aside.
. The conviction and sentence on the appellant no.1 Tanaji (in
Cri.Appeal No.919 of 2009) for offence under Section 302 IPC is
maintained.
. The appellant no.2 Sarubai (in Cri.Appeal No.919 of 2009)
and the appellant nos.1 and 2 (in Cri. Appeal No.898 of 2009) are
acquitted of offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 of IPC, and they are
pps 40/41
Apeal 919_09 wi 898_09.doc
held guilty of the offence under Section 323 of IPC and are sen-
tenced to undergo imprisonment for one year. Since these appel-
lants were already in custody for over one year during the penden-
cy of the trial, the period of imprisonment undergone is ordered
to be set off. Their bail bonds cum surety bonds are according-
ly discharged.
(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J.) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,J.)
pps 41/41
