Bombay High Court
Shantilal Haribhau Karkele vs The State Of Maharashtra on 21 December, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
(1) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 455 OF 2002
1. Shantilal Haribhau Karkele ] Appeal Abated
] against Appellant No.1
2. Salubai Haribhau Karkele, ] as per order
Age : 45 Years, Occ. Agriculture, ] dated 4.12.2017
and Household ]
]
Appellant Nos. 1 and 2 ] ... APPELLANTS.
r/o Tribhuvanwadi, ] (Ori. Accused No. 1 &
Tal. Pathardi, Dist.Ahmednagar. ] and 2)
Versus
The State of Maharashtra. .. RESPONDENT.
.......
The appeal is abated against the Appellant No.1 as per
Court order dated. 04.12.2017.
....
Mr. A.B. Gatne, Advocate for the Appellant No.2
Mr. S.J. Salgare, Addl. Public Prosecutor for Respondent.
..
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
A.M.DHAVALE, JJ.
Date of reserving the Judgment : 08.12.2017
Date of pronouncing the Judgment : 21.12.2017
(2) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
JUDGMENT (PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.) :-
1. Appeal is filed against the Judgment and order of learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar delivered in Sessions Case
No. 40 of 2001. The appellant No.2 of the present appeal is convicted
for offences punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section
34 of the Indian Penal Code and she is sentenced to imprisonment for
life. Similar decision was given against the appellant No.1 who was
the son of appellant No.2, but he died during the pendency of the
appeal and the appeal is disposed of as abated. Both the sides are
heard.
In short the facts leading to the institution of the present
proceedings can be stated as follows :-
2. The deceased Manisha was the daughter of Aadinath Tandale
who is resident of Khargatwadi, Tahsil Asthi, District Beed. Manisha
was given in marriage to the appellant No.1 Shantilal Haribhau
Karkele on 13th May, 1999. The appellant No.2 is mother of Shantilal
and appellant No.2 is resident of Tribhuvanwadi Tq. Pathardi, District
Ahmendnagar. Some more persons were made accused in the case.
(3) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
The accused No.4 is the sister of husband of the deceased and
accused No.3 is husband of the accused No.4. Accused No.3 and 4
are acquitted by the trial Court and the said decision is not
challenged by the State. Deceased has not left behind any issue.
3. It is the case of the State that one year after the marriage, the
accused persons started asking deceased to bring Rs. 25,000/- from
her parents as vehicle was to be purchased for husband. Allegations
are made that there was ill treatment from all the accused to
deceased Manisha as their demand was not met with. It is
contended that Manisha disclosed about ill-treatment and demand of
money, during her visit to house of parent's. She had also disclosed
that all accused used to give beating to her and they used to give
abuses to her. The parents of the deceased had tried to convince the
accused persons, but their conduct did not improve.
4. The incident in question took place on 03.01.2001 at about 11
a.m in the matrimonial house at Tribhuvanwadi. Manisha sustained
burn injuries. Information was reached to the parents of the
(4) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
deceased about the incident and Manisha was shifted to the Civil
Hospital at about 1.00 p.m on 03.01.2001. Manisha made first
disclosure and she informed that there was ill treatment to her for
demand of Rs. 25,000/- made by the husband and as his demand
was not met with there was quarrel, she disclosed that during the
quarrel, mother- in-law, accused No.2, caught hold of her hands and
accused No.1/ husband of the deceased, poured kerosene on her
person and he set fire to her. She disclosed that after starting of fire,
mother-in-law ran away, outside and shouted to call neighborus. She
disclosed that her neighbours came to the house and extinguished
the fire and they shifted her to the Civil Hospital. Her one more dying
declaration was recorded. She succumbed to 93% burn injuries on
07.01.2001.
5. On the basis of dying declaration, crime No. 04/20011
came to be registered in Topkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar.
Police prepared spot panchnama. After the death, inquest
panchnama was prepared and dead body was referred for post
mortem examination. The statements of the neighbourers came to be
recorded on 09.01.2001. Articles taken over during the investigation
(5) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
were sent to the C.A office and charge-sheet was filed against all the
four accused persons. The charge was framed for aforesaid offences.
The accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution has examined eight
witnesses. All the accused took defence of total denial.
6. Trial Court gave conviction to husband and his mother on the
basis of dying declarations and also the evidence given by the
relatives of the deceased about ill-treatment.
7. It is not disputed that death took place due to burn injuries.
The post mortem report is at Exh. 65 and inquest panchnama is at
Exh.33, which are admitted by the defence. The extent of burns on
left upper limb was 9% and it was 9% on right upper limb also. The
injuries were superficial to deep burns.
8. The first dying declaration is proved in the evidence of
Ramchandra Ganpatrao Dimale (P.W.5), Executive Magistrate. He has
deposed that he recorded dying declaration at 10 p.m on 03.1.2001.
He has given evidence that he sought the opinion of Medical Officer
(6) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
regarding fitness of the deceased and an opinion was given that she
was fit to give statement. He has deposed that throughout recording
of dying declaration, the Medical Officer was present by the side of
patient and his endorsement was obtained accordingly on dying
declaration. The record of dying declaration is proved at Exh. 46, in
the evidence of P.W. No.5. He has deposed that before obtaining
thumb impression of deceased on Exh.46, he had read over the
contents of Exh.46 to the deceased and when she admitted the
contents and correctness, he obtained her thumb impression. The
contents of Exh. 46 are as follows :-
(i) The marriage of the deceased had taken place prior to 1 and ½
years.
(ii) The deceased was educated up to 10th standard.
(iii) The incident took place at 11 a.m.
(iv) The husband and mother-in-law were present in the house,
at the time of incident.
(v) The husband was working as a driver and he was asking the
deceased to bring Rs. 25,000/- from her parents as he wanted to
purchase a vehicle.
(7) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
(vi) The parents of the deceased are poor, they are required to
maintain two younger brothers of the deceased and so they could not
afford to give the amount.
(vii) During the incident in question, husband asked deceased to go
to the parents and bring Rs., 25,000/-.
(viii) The deceased said to the husband that she will not give money.
(ix) Mother-in-law, caught hold of hands of the deceased.
(x) The husband poured kerosene, from kerosene can of two liters
capacity on the person of the deceased.
(xi) Only husband and mother-in-law were present in the house.
(xii) The husband set fire to Saree and blouse of the deceased,
which caught fire.
(iii) The deceased shouted that she was inflame { isVys isVys À
(iv) The neighbours rushed to the house of the deceased and
by using clothes, they extinguished the fire.
(xv) Information was given to the father-in-law.
(xvi) The mother-in-law and father-in-law, admitted her in Civil
Hospital, Ahmednagar.
(xvii) Even if she survives, the husband will not allow her to cohabit
(8) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
with him.
(xviii) For incident in question, her mother-in-law and husband are
responsible.
(xix) The statement was read over to the deceased and it was
admitted to be correct.
(xx) The deceased was not in a position to use hand and so had not
put her signature.
9. Devram Namdev Gore (P.W. No.3) Police Head Constable,
recorded second dying declaration of the deceased on 07.01.2001.
This constable was attached to Pathardi Police Station. He has
deposed that, he was asked to record dying declaration on that day
and so he recorded second dying declaration of deceased Manisha on
07.01.2001. He has deposed that he asked Manisha as to whether she
was in a position to give statement and when she answered in
affirmative, he recorded the statement of deceased Manisha. He has
further deposed that, he obtained the thumb impression of Manisha
on the statement.
(9) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
10. Manisha admittedly died on 07.01.2001, on which date second
dying declaration was allegedly recorded. The evidence of Devram
Gore (P.W.3), Police Head Constable, does not show that he had
attempted to approach Medical Officer to obtain opinion regarding the
fitness of Manisha to give statement. No reason whatsoever is given
by this witness for not obtaining opinion of the Medical Officer on
07.01.2001. The evidence of this witness shows that, he was not in
charge of the investigation. The evidence of Investigating officer
Ghanashyam Palwade ( P.W. No.8) shows that there was no written
instruction to Devram Gore (P.W. No.3) to record one more dying
declaration. No application was given for the same, by any relatives of
the deceased. These circumstances need be kept in the mind as
much improvement was made in the second dying declaration and
more persons were implicated.
11. Exh. 35 second dying declaration contains following things :-
(i) Sangita, sister-in-law of the deceased who is resident of village
Chinchodi Shiral Tq. Pathardi, was instigating the husband of the
deceased to ask the deceased to bring Rs. 25,000/- from parents of
( 10 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
the deceased for purchasing motor-cycle for husband.
(ii) Due to instigation of Sangita, the husband of the deceased and
the mother in law of deceased were asking deceased to bring Rs.
25,000/-.
(iii) The husband of the sister-in-law, namely Satish ( accused No.3)
was also instigating the husband to demand Rs. 25,000/- and was
saying that the husband should not allow the deceased to cohabit
with him unless the demand was met with.
(iv) The deceased had disclosed about the demand and ill-
treatment to her parents.
(v) As the demand was not met with, even sister-in-law used to beat
to the deceased.
(vi) On 02.01.2001, the husband had brought meat even when it
was Tuesday and they were not expected to eat non-veg on Tuesday.
On 02.01.2001, the husband consumed liquor and he had taken non-
veg meat in the dinner.
(vii) On 03.01.2001, at about 9.00 a.m, quarrel started between
deceased and her husband as the husband had brought meat to
home on Tuesday. The deceased had expressed that husband ought
( 11 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
to have brought meat on Thursday.
(viii) During the quarrel, husband said that he would finish the
deceased by burning her.
(ix) The mother-in-law of the deceased was also asking her to bring
Rs. 25,000- and had given abuses to her.
12. All the aforesaid things were not disclosed in the first dying
declaration. There were no allegations against accused No.4 Sangita
and her husband accused No.3. No reasons, for quarreling over
bringing meat on Tuesday, was mentioned in the first dying
declaration.
13. Exh. 35, second dying declaration contains more things, which
were there in the first dying declaration. Those things are as under :-
(i) During the incident, mother-in-law held both the hands of the
deceased.
(ii) The husband poured kerosene on abdomen of deceased from
Can of kerosene, which was present in the house.
(iii) The husband set on fire to the deceased by using Matchstick.
( 12 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
(iv) When the deceased caught fire, the mother-in-law left her and
ran out of the house and she started shouting, and for leaving the
house mother-in-law had removed the latch of the door.
(v) The husband of the deceased and neighbourers extinguished
the fire.
(vi) The mother-in-law and the father-in-law of the deceased took
the deceased to Civil Hospital for medical treatment.
14. Aadinath ( P.W. No.4), father of the deceased, has deposed
that due to instigation of accused No.3 Satish, the husband and
mother-in-law of the deceased gave ill-treatment to the deceased. He
has deposed that they were asking to bring Rs. 25,000/- from the
parents and as demand was not met with, mother-in-law, husband
and even accused No.3 were assaulting the deceased. He has given
evidence that father-in-law instigated other accused to give ill-
treatment. He has given evidence that during the visits of the
deceased to the house of her parents, she used to disclose about
demand and ill-treatment.
( 13 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
15. Aadinath Tandale (P.W. No.4) has deposed that on 03.01.2001,
after knowing about the incident, he went to the Civil Hospital and
there the deceased made following disclosure to him. :-
(i) At 9.00 a.m., mother-in-law, and husband asked to bring money
of Rs. 25,000/- from the parents for purchasing motor-cycle.
(ii) Deceased refused to bring money.
(iii) Mother-in-law caught hold hands of the deceased. The husband
poured kerosene on her person and set fire to her.
(iv) After setting fire, husband went outside of the house and bolted
the door from outside.
(v) The deceased shouted for help.
(vi) The neighbours extinguished the fire.
(vii) In-laws admitted the deceased in the Hospital.
16. Haribhau Tandale ( P.W.7), cousin brother of Aadinath Tandale
(P.W.4), who is also uncle of the deceased, has given evidence, which
is similar to the evidence of Aadinath (P.W.4) about ill-treatment and
dying declaration. Haribhau Tandale (P.W.7) has deposed that
deceased disclosed to him that her neighbours had opened the door
( 14 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
and had taken her out of the house. In the evidence of Haribhau
Tandale (P.W. No.7), it is brought on record that as per disclosure of
the deceased, neighbours had opened the door and they had also
extinguished the fire.
17. In the evidence of investigating officer Ghanashyam
Palwade (P.W. No.8), it is brought on record that on 04.01.2001, he
recorded the statement of neighbours, like Digamber, Dilip, and
Namdev. When statements of the neighbours were recorded on
04.01.2001 , the statements of close relatives of the deceased were
recorded on 09.01.2001. In the recorded dying declaration also it is
disclosed that neighbours had extinguished the fire. These
neighbours are not examined by the prosecution as witnesses and no
reasons are given for the same.
18. Spot panchnama ( Exh.31) is proved in the evidence of Mohan
Shripati Karkhele (P.W. No.1), panch witness. The evidence of the
panch witness, Investigating Officer (P.W. No.8) and the document at
Exh.31 show that spot was shown by Haribhau (P.W.7). The
( 15 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
panchnama was prepared on 04.01.2001 between 17.30 and 18.00
hours. Exh.31 shows that house was facing towards Nagar-Thisgaon
road. The Entrance door of the house was towards western side and
door was made by using wooden planks. Entrance door was found in
broken condition and its wooden planks were lying inside of the
house. The house of the deceased was having length of 30 feet and
width of 8 feet. Exh. 31 further shows that, house was having floor
of tiles and house was constructed in stones and cement. The house
had ceiling of planks and pieces of wood. At Northern window corner
of the house, there was cooking place and Earthen stove ( chool) was
facing towards east side. To the western side of the house, there were
four windows. They were open. In front of the cooking place, there
was kerosene drum and pieces of partly burnt saree were lying there.
One Match box was also lying there. There was smell of kerosene in
the house. Near southern side wall of the house, pieces of Parker
(petticoat) in partly burnt condition were lying. Exh. 31 spot
panchanama shows that on eastern side of the house, there was
small room of tin shed and there was entrance door opening into that
room from main construction and this door was also made from
( 16 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
wooden planks. The door was not a visible from outside as this door
was opening towards the room created on eastern side. Thus, only
one door situated on western side, towards the road was available for
entry in the house and this door was found in broken condition.
Across the road, there were many houses.
19. The aforesaid circumstances mentioned in spot panchanama
( Exh.31) and the evidence of the investigating officer have created
probability that the neighbours were required to break open entrance
door and neighbours had reached the spot immediately after the
incident. If the neighbours had opened the door and they
extinguished the fire, it was necessary for the prosecution to examine
these witnesses. These witnesses would have made it clear as to why
the door was required to be broken, as to whether the appellant No.2
was present inside the house or outside the house and what was the
first disclosure made by the deceased. Due to non examination of the
neighbours in the present matter, adverse inference needs to be
drawn against the prosecution and benefit of these circumstances is
required to be given at least to appellant No.2.
( 17 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
20. The evidence shows that, the relatives of the parent's side of the
deceased have tried to say that disclosure was made to them when
they reached the Civil Hospital, at 1.00 p.m on 03.01.2001 itself. If
the disclosure was of aforesaid nature, in ordinary course, the
parents would have given report to Police, on the basis of those
disclosure but that did not happen. If there was really demand of
money from the accused persons and, there was ill-treatment to the
deceased, in that case also, father would have approached to the
Police after seeing condition of his daughter on 03.01.2001 itself. The
father and the other relatives gave statements to the Police on
09.01.2001 and no explanation is given by these witnesses, on the
circumstance of delay caused for giving statements to the Police.
21. The evidence on record and particularly on the distance
given by the Investigating Officer between the village of the accused
and the Civil Hospital shows that the deceased was reached to the
Civil Hospital well before 1.00 p.m, on 03.01.2001. If the deceased
was admitted well before 1.00 p.m on 03.01.2001, in ordinary course
dying declaration would have been recorded immediately at about
( 18 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
1.00 p.m. That did not happen and her dying declaration was
recorded at 10.15 p.m on 03.01.2001. No explanation is given by the
prosecution on this circumstance also.
22. The deceased was alive till 07.01.2001, for about four days
from the date of incident. She was receiving the treatment in Civil
Hospital. In view of these circumstances, it was necessary for
prosecution to produce bed- head- ticket-case papers. Prosecution
has not produced such papers. Though ordinarily doctors from
Government Hospital do not administer sedatives before recording
dying declaration, in the present case the deceased was in the
Hospital for about 9 hours before recording the dying declaration. It
is not probable that for nine hours no treatment at all was given to
the deceased when the extent of burns was 93%. The record of the
case of patient would have definitely helped in ascertaining the
condition of the patient and treatment given to her. Adverse inference
can be drawn due to this circumstance also. Though there is evidence
of Dr. Balaji Jadhav ( P.W.6) to the effect that he had examined the
patient before recording of dying declaration by Executive Magistrate
( 19 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
and he had found patent to be in fit condition, due to aforesaid
circumstance, it was necessary for prosecution to produce the case
papers. Possibility that sedatives were already given, cannot be ruled
out, in the present matter. Further father and other relatives of the
deceased had reached the hospital and there is clear probability that
there was tutoring before recording of first dying declaration.
23. The contents of the second dying declaration recorded by Police
Head Constable show that an attempt was made to implicate other
relatives of the husband by creating record of second dying
declaration. Even married sister of the husband, who was living at
other station was implicated and also her husband for the offence
punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. It can be
said that relatives of the deceased gave statements to the Police late
as they wanted to implicate relatives of the husband by creating
record of dying declaration. It was necessary to give explanation why
they did not approach the police on 03.01.2001 if they had grievance
against all the accused. Thus probability that the relatives of the
deceased tutored the deceased and they took steps that to see that,
( 20 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
not only husband and mother-in-law but all the relatives of the
husband side are implicated, cannot be ruled out.
24. The contents of the dying declaration that mother-in-law
was holding deceased when the husband was pouring kerosene and
setting her on fire also are improbable in nature. The evidence of
Haribhau (P.W.7) uncle of the deceased shows that when he reached
the hospital on 03.01.2001, he noticed that mother-in-law (present
appellant) was present by the side of the deceased. Even in dying
declaration, there is mention that mother-in-law shifted the deceased
to the Civil Hospital. This conduct of the present appellant was not
consistent with the guilt but was consistent with her innocence.
Further if the mother-in-law was holding hands of the deceased when
husband was pouring kerosene on the person of deceased, some
kerosene must have come on the clothes of the present appellant.
When on 03.01.2001, present appellant was available, her clothes
were not taken out by the police. Thus police did not collect the other
evidence which could have been used as a circumstance.
( 21 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
25. The evidence of the relatives of the deceased shows that
financial condition of her father was poor. The evidence shows that
her father is required to take care of four more daughters. In the
dying declaration, there is mention that deceased had two younger
brothers. There is no evidence that husband has made demand
directly. Further the amount, if at all demanded, was for husband for
purchasing of motor-cycle and it must have been demand of husband,
who is not alive. There are no particulars as to when the demand was
made. The evidence on record shows that the accused were not
preventing the deceased to visit the house of parents on the occasion
of the festivals. She was regularly visiting the house of the parents.
Evidence does not show that she was driven out of matrimonial
house as demand was not met with. Thus the evidence of so called
demand and ill-treatment is also not convincing in nature.
26. It is already observed that in the second dying declaration,
the reason for quarrel mentioned is different. If the quarrel had
started on the ground of bringing of meat by the husband on Tuesday,
it can be said that due to quarrel, some incident took place. If
( 22 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
quarrel had taken place due to bringing of meat on Tuesday by the
husband, there was no reason for the husband to finish the
deceased. The possibility that quarrel created an anger in the mind
of the deceased and she set herself on fire cannot ruled out. The
circumstances like the entrance door was in broken condition,
supports such probability.
27. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on some
reported cases. In the case of Manohar Dadarao Landge Vs. State
of Maharashtra (
1999 (Supp.1)
Bom.C.R. 215
Bombay High
Court) in view of the facts therein, the Court held that the dying
declaration was not reliable.
28. In the case of Paparambaka Rosamma And Others Vs.
State of A.P (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 695 ) the Apex Court
has held that certificate given by the doctor about consciousness was
not sufficient and the certificate regarding fitness of mind ought to
have been there.
( 23 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
29. On this point the learned A.P.P placed reliance on the case of
Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra ( AIR (SC) 2973 ) ,. In this case,
the larger bench of the Apex Court has laid down that only due to
circumstances like absence of certificate of doctor about
consciousness and fitness of patient, the evidence of the dying
declaration cannot be discarded. There cannot be dispute over this
proposition.
30. In the case of Uka Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan ( (2001) 5
Supreme Court Cases 254 ) the Apex Court has laid down that for
placing reliance on evidence of dying declaration the Court should be
satisfied about its trustworthiness and voluntary nature and fitness
of mind of the deceased. There cannot be dispute over this
proposition.
31. In the case of Surinder Kumar Vs. State of Harayana
(2011) 10 Supreme Court Cases 172 ) in view of the facts therein
the Apex Court held that no reliance can be placed on dying
declaration which was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The
( 24 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
whole body was burnt and it was the case that thumb impression
was obtained. The body was bandaged. The Court therefore, held
that dying declaration was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. In
the said case, the Apex Court considered the necessity of examination
of witnesses. In view of the facts of the said case, the Apex Court
held that it was necessary to have evidence of the person who had
accompanied the deceased to hospital and it was necessary to make
enquiry with children of deceased who were aged about six and four
years respectively and were allegedly present at the time of incident.
32. In the present case, both the upper limbs of the deceased had
burn injuries. But it was necessary for the defence to bring on record
that it was not possible to have thumb impression of the deceased.
Thus, only due to the circumstance that upper limbs were in burnt
conditions, the evidence of dying declaration cannot be discarded.
However, there is circumstance like the neighbours, whose names are
taken by the Investigating Officer as persons who gave statements
before Police, are not examined. They were material witnesses and in
the present case, in view of the surrounding circumstances, their
( 25 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
examination was necessary. Non examination of these witnesses is
circumstance due to which adverse inference needs to be drawn
against the prosecution.
33. Learned A.P.P. Submitted that, in view of the ratio of the
case of Laxman Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) and in view of
observations made by the Apex Court in the case Ashabai and
Another Vs. State of Maharashtra ( A IR 2013 Supreme Court 341
.
First dying declaration is sufficient for basing conviction law does not
insist upon corroboration of dying declaration before it can be
accepted. It is true that the insistence of corroboration to a dying
declaration is only a rule of prudence. It depends upon facts and
circumstances of each and every case. It is open to the Court to
decide as to whether corroboration to dying declaration is necessary
or not. In the present case, this Court holds that there was necessity
to have independent corroboration like the evidence of neighbours
and only after that, conviction could have been based on the first
dying declaration. Thus, there is record of dying declaration which
can be used under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, but there is
( 26 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
no necessary corroboration.
34. Due to surrounding circumstance and absence of independent
corroboration, this Court holds that it is not safe to convict the
present appellant. The trial Court has not considered aforesaid
circumstances and due to that the trial Court has committed error in
convicting the mother-in-law. This Court holds that interference is
warranted in the impugned Judgment/order. In the result, the
appeal of the Appellant No.2. Salubai Haribhau Karkele is hereby
allowed, with the following order :-
ORDER
1. Appeal of Appellant No.2 Salubai Haribhau Karkele is allowed.
2. The Judgment and order of trial Court in Sessions Case No. 40
of 2001 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dated
09.07.2002 convicting the appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A of the Indian Penal
Code is hereby set-aside. The appellant stands acquitted of
both the offences. Her bail bonds stand cancelled.
( 27 ) Cri. Appeal No. 455 of 2002
3. The fine amount, if any deposited by the appellant, be returned
to her.
(A.M. DHAVALE, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)
YSK/
