Sanjay Ramlal Umale (In Jail) vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. D.G.P. ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 5839 Bom

            J-apeal156.16.odt                                                                                                 1/9 


                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                                                                            
                                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR




                                                                              
                                      CRIMINAL APPEAL No.156 OF 2016


            Sanjay Ramlal Umale,




                                                                             
            Aged 40 years,
            Occupation : Service,
            R/o. Nirman Nagar, 
            Ganga Nagar-1,
            Old City, Akola, Tq. Distt. Akola.                                          :      APPELLANT




                                                          
                               ...VERSUS...
                                 
            State of Maharashtra,
            Police Station Officer, 
                                
            Old City, Akola.                                                            :      RESPONDENT


            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
            Shri H.M. Mohta, Advocate for the Petitioner.
      

            Shri S.J. Kadu, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Respondent.
            =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
   



                                                          CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.

th DATE : 4 OCTOBER, 2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. Heard finally by consent.

2. Paper book is dispensed with.

3. By this appeal, the appellant has challenged the legality and

correctness of the judgment and order dated 2.5.2016, passed by the

Additional Sessions Judge, Akola, in Sessions Trial No.71/2009.

J-apeal156.16.odt 2/9

4. The appellant was prosecuted for offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 306 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code along with his father Ramlal, mother Sushilabai and brother Ajay

on the allegation that the appellant and his co-accused, prior to the death

of wife of the appellant Karuna on 28.8.2008 due to poisoning, subjected

the deceased Karuna to persistent cruelty, which led to her death under

suspicious circumstances. The appellant got married to the deceased

Karuna in the year 1997. It was alleged that for about 2 to 3 months, the

appellant and his co-accused that is the in-laws of the deceased Karuna

treated her well and thereafter, subjected deceased Karuna to cruelty. It

was further alleged that whenever deceased Karuna used to visit her

parental house, she used to disclose to her father, brother and sister

about the ill-treatment meted out to her by the appellant and his co-

accused. About eight days prior to the death of Karuna, it was further

alleged, Karuna had visited her parental house and informed her father

that there was no improvement in the conduct of the appellant and the

other accused towards her and that there was no guarantee to her life.

She also told her father that he should arrange for amount of Rs.50,000/-

as early as possible. On 28 th August, 2008, the deceased Karuna died

after consuming the poison. Father of Karuna, Niranjan Namdeo

Khanderao, suspected that she was killed by the appellant and the other

co-accused and, therefore, he lodged a report on the next day i.e. on

J-apeal156.16.odt 3/9

29th August, 2008. The offences punishable under Sections 302 and

498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were registered and

investigation was commenced. After completion of the investigation, a

charge-sheet came to be filed and as it involved offences exclusively

tribal by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions

Court.

5. On merits of the case, learned Additional Sessions Judge

found that the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code was not reasonably proved against any of the accused and,

therefore, he acquitted all the accused including the appellant of the

same. He also acquitted the co-accused of the appellant of the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code. He, however, convicted the appellant of the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and

sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months and

rigorous imprisonment for five years together with fine amount of

Rs.20,000/- and 30,000/- respectively for the said offences by his

judgment and order dated 2.5.2016. It is the same judgment and order

which are under challenge in the present appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is

absolutely no evidence of cruelty brought on record, as contemplated

under the law and, therefore, the offences punishable under Sections

J-apeal156.16.odt 4/9

498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not made out against the

appellant. According to the learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State,

there is no scope for making an interference with the impugned

judgment and order as the evidence has been properly appreciated and it

goes to show that these offences are proved beyond reasonable doubt by

the prosecution.

7. On going through the impugned judgment and order as well

as the record of the case, I find that there is great substance in the

argument of learned counsel for the appellant and no merit in the

argument of learned A.P.P. for the respondent/State.

8. There are three material prosecution witnesses, who are

PW 1- Niranjan, father of the deceased, PW 2-Madan, brother of the

deceased and PW 6-Vandana, sister of the deceased. On examining

minutely the evidence of three material prosecution witnesses, two things

are prominently noticed, first is that all of them make allegations of

cruelty and ill-treatment not only against the appellant but also against

the co-accused i.e. father, mother and brother of the appellant and

secondly, these allegations of ill-treatment or cruelty are so general as to

make it difficult for the Court to come to a conclusion that they fall

within the meaning of cruelty as defined by Explanation (b) of Section

498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Surprising part of the impugned judgment and order is that

J-apeal156.16.odt 5/9

inspite of the allegations being made not only against the appellant, but

also against the other co-accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge

has made a distinction, albeit artificially, between the position of the

appellant and that of the remaining accused persons. He has observed in

paragraph 34 of the judgment that there are no specific allegations

against other accused persons except accused No.1 in respect of

subjecting the deceased to cruelty and abetting her to commit suicide. I

must say, this conclusion is perverse and cannot be said to have been

borne out from the evidence available on record. The allegations, similar

in nature, have been made against this appellant and so also the

remaining co-accused. It is a different matter that these allegations are

general in nature. But, the fact remains that the allegations are indeed

there made with equal force against all the accused including the

appellant. Therefore, such a distinction ought not to have been made by

the learned Additional Sessions Judge.

10. Coming back to the allegations of cruelty made against the

appellant, I must say that all the 3 witnesses, PW 1- Niranjan, PW 2-

Madan and PW 6-Vandana have not explained anything about the nature

of ill-treatment or the harassment or the cruelty nor have elaborated

upon the particular acts committed by the appellant, which were

considered by the deceased Karuna as well as these three witnesses to be

constituting ill-treatment or cruelty.

J-apeal156.16.odt 6/9

11. PW 1 has stated that the deceased Karuna was "physically

and mentally ill-treated and no one from her in-laws was good". He has

further stated in paragraph 1 of his deposition that "she was saying that

her husband and his parents were insulting her and taunting her and

were talking to her insultingly saying that they were paid meagre

dowry". This is the evidence given by PW 1 Niranjan on oath before the

Court. Describing the conduct of the appellant towards his daughter,

deceased Karuna, in words like "ill-treatement", "insulting", "taunts" etc.

is nothing but opinion of PW 1 Niranjan. In order that particular acts

amount to cruelty as defined by the Explanation (b) of Section 498-A of

the Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that those acts are stated in a

specific manner so that the Court can consider them in the light of

applicable law and come to a conclusion that these acts, in the eye of

law, amount to cruelty or otherwise. But, unfortunately, this is not seen

in the evidence of PW 1-Niranjan. Of course, he has stated that on 20 th

day, which must have been 20th August, 2008, deceased Karuna told him

that there was no guarantee to her life as the accused persons were not

improving in their conduct towards her. On that day, she also told her

father that he should arrange for amount of Rs.50,000/- as early as

possible. But, except for such a stray statement, there is nothing

available on record from which one could conclude that the conduct of

the appellant towards his wife deceased Karuna was cruel and degrading

J-apeal156.16.odt 7/9

as contemplated by law and was of persistent nature. Therefore, not

much importance can be given to the stray statement of deceased

Karuna.

12. What has been found on analysis of evidence of PW 1

Niranjan can also be found in respect of evidence of PW 2 Madan brother

of the deceased Karuna and PW 6- Vandana sister of the deceased

Karuna. Both of them too have been extremely general in stating about

the so called objectionable conduct of the appellant towards deceased

Karuna. In their opinion, that conduct amounted to harassing deceased

Karuna physically and mentally and was in the nature of her ill-

treatment. According to them, such "harassment" and "ill-treatment" was

because of the fact that dowry was not paid. But, again both these

witnesses are silent about the particular acts of cruelty or ill-treatment.

Therefore, what was perceived by these two witnesses was also what

could be said to be their opinion about the behavior of the appellant vis-

a-vis his deceased wife Karuna. As stated earlier, particular acts are

necessary so that the Court can consider them and adjudicate upon them

to be or not to be cruelty within the meaning of law. That is, however,

not the case here.

13. With such evidence being there on record, I do not think that

the learned Additional Sessions Judge could have made any conclusion

about the prosecution bringing home to the appellant his guilt for the

J-apeal156.16.odt 8/9

offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal

Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, has based his inferences in

this case upon something, which is not to be seen in the prosecution

evidence. Besides, the nature of prosecution evidence is such that a

reasonable doubt is created about handing out of cruelty to the deceased

by the appellant. In such a case, the benefit of doubt ought to have been

given to the appellant, which was not.

14. In the result, the appeal deserves to be allowed and it is

allowed accordingly.

15. The impugned judgment and order dated 2.5.2016, passed

by the Additional Sessions Judge, Akola are hereby quashed and set

aside.

16. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

17. The fine amounts, if paid by the appellant, be refunded to

him.

18. His bail bonds stand discharged.

19. The seized muddemal property, being worthless and useless

be destroyed in accordance with law.

                                               
                                                                                                         JUDGE


    okMksns





             J-apeal156.16.odt                                                                                                 9/9 




                                                           CERTIFICATE




                                                                                                            

"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct

copy of original signed Judgment."

Uploaded by : D.W. Wadode, P.A.

Uploaded on : 6.10.2016.