The State Of ... vs Durgadas Baban Pawar & 3 Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 4957 Bom

                                                   1                                                  apeal146.02.J

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                          NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 146 OF 2002

       The State of Maharashtra,
       Through P. S. O. Khandala,
       Tah-Pusad, District - Yavatmal.                                         ...APPELLANT.

                        - V E R S U S -

       1]  Durgadas Baban Pawar,
            Aged about 32 years.

       2]  Sau. Suman Durgadas Pawar,
             Aged about 29 years.

       3]  Dhanibai Baban Pawar,
             Aged about 79 years.

       4]  Gayabai Baban Pawar,
             Aged about 74 years.

             All R/o Phetra Tanda,
             Tah-Pusad, District-Yavatmal                                       ...RESPONDENTS.
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
       Shri T. A. Mirza, A. P. P. for the Appellant/State.
       None for the Respondents.
       - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                                         CORAM :  Z.A.HAQ, J.

DATED : 24 th

JULY, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT.

Shri K. S. Narwade, Advocate, who appeared for the

respondents, is discharged by this Court by order passed on 12 th January,

2017 and after discharging him bailable warrants were issued against the

respondents/accused. The Office note shows that bailable warrants could

not be executed as the respondents are not found in village Phetra Tanda.

None appeared for the respondents.

                                           2                                                  apeal146.02.J

   02]            Heard   Shri.   T.   A.   Mirza   learned   A.   P.   P.   for   the   State   of

   Maharashtra.



   03]            This appeal is filed by the State of Maharashtra to challenge

the judgment passed by the Sessions Court acquitting the accused of the

charges of offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court granted leave to file

appeal by order dated 13.08.2002.

04] The case of the prosecution is :

Rama Rathod lodged complaint on 13 th October, 1995 that

her daughter Leela is killed by the accused by administering poison to

her. According to the complainant, marriage between accused No.1 -

Durgadas Baban Pawar and Leela was solemnized about 10 years prior to

the incident, Leela was given proper treatment for about 1½ years to 2

years, however, later on she was illtreated and the accused made constant

demand. The complaint was lodged against the accused No.1 (husband

of Leela), on the basis of which crime was registered and he was

prosecuted vide Regular Criminal Case No.152 of 1989. According to the

prosecution, after dismissal of Regular Criminal Case No.152 of 1989,

again for some period Leela was given proper treatment, however, after

sometime illtreatment started and accused started demanding money

from Leela. It was alleged that the accused had administered poison to

Leela because of which she died.

3 apeal146.02.J

After receiving the complaint, the Investigating Agency

started investigation and after completing the formalities filed charge-

sheet against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 498-A,

306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Sessions Court

framed charges, read and explained the charges to the accused, the

accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried and therefore, the

trial was conducted. After concluding the trial, the Sessions Court

recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused

subjected Leela to cruelty and beat her as she failed to fulfill the unlawful

demand of money and that Leela committed suicide because of

illtreatment and harassment. The Sessions Court acquitted the accused.

05] With the assistance of the learned A. P. P., I have examined

the record. The evidence on record shows that Leela was the second wife

of accused No.1 - Durgadas. The accused No.2 - Sau. Suman Pawar is

first wife of Durgadas and as Sau. Suman Pawar was unable to conceive,

Durgadas married with Leela. The evidence on record shows that when

the incident took place, accused No.1 had informed the relatives of Leela

immediately that she had consumed poison and accused No.1 - Durgadas

attempted to arrange for a Car to take Leela to hospital and in his

attempt, he had even gone to the police station and requested for making

available the Police Jeep and Police provided Jeep to enable Durgadas to

take Leela to hospital.

                                        4                                                  apeal146.02.J

   06]            The   Sessions   Court   has   found   that   the   evidence   of

complainant Rama Rathod (PW-1) is not trustworthy. The learned A.P.P.

has not been able to point out that the Sessions Court has not considered

any relevant evidence or that there is any perversity in the conclusions.

I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. The

appeal is dismissed. The bail bonds executed by the accused stand

cancelled. The muddemal property be dealt with according to law, after

the period of appeal is over.

JUDGE PBP