Manohar S/O Vitthal Jadhao vs State Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 706 Bom

                                                                 205.02crapl
                                   (1)


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         BENCH AT NAGPUR
                                               
                CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.205 OF 2002 

 Manohar s/o Vitthal Jadhao,
 Aged about 38 years,
 R/o. Daheli, Taluka Darwha,
 District Yavatmal.                                ..APPELLANT

          VERSUS

 State of Maharashtra,
 through Police Station Officer,
 Police Station, Darwha,
 Tq. Darwha, Dist. Yevatmal.                       ..RESPONDENT


 Mr M.T. Dhatrak, Advocate for appellant;
 Mr Vishal Gangane, Addl. Public Prosecutor, 
 Advocate for respondent

                              
                           CORAM :  N.W. SAMBRE, J. 

DATE : 14th MARCH, 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT :

Learned Adhoc Additional Session Judge,

Yavatmal, in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 1996, was

pleased to convict the appellant vide judgment and

order dated 12th March, 2002, for the offence

punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal

Code and sentenced him to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1000/-,

in default, further rigorous imprisonment for two

205.02crapl

months, and under Section 306 of the Indian Penal

Code, rigorous imprisonment for three years with

fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to suffer rigorous

imprisonment for two months. Against the said

conviction, present appeal is preferred by the

appellant-accused.

2. Balchandra Belorkar, P.S.I. attached to

the police station, Darwha, PW-5, who is examined

at Exhibit-36, received report from one Vishwanath,

father of deceased Chhaya on 30th March, 1996. It

is claimed that deceased Chhaya, who was married to

the accused 15 to 20 years back, as is claimed by

PW-1 Vishwanath, father of deceased and PW-2,

mother of deceased claimed that, she was married 9

to 10 years, committed suicide, which was abetted

by the appellant-accused resulting into

registration of crime in question.

3. Deceased Chhaya died due to cardio-

respiratory arrest due to asphyxia due to hanging

and seizure panchnama qua rope used for hanging is

carried out as per Exhibit-17, spot panchnama

205.02crapl

Exhibit-16, inquest panchnama Exhibit 19, Murg

Khabri Exhibit-32, Exhibit-20 body forwarding

report for post mortem, seizure of the clothes is

by virtue of panchnama Exhibit-23. Exhibit-29 is

oral report given by the complainant against the

accused i.e. by PW-1. Exhibit-30 is the first

information report. In support of offence, as has

been alleged, the Investigating Officer recorded

statements of witnesses Vachchalabai Gadhe,

Laxmibai Ghadge, Himmatrao Gadhe, Vishwanath along

with other witnesses. Post mortem report is at

Exhibit-24, request for C.A. report sending viscera

to the Forensic Science Laboratory is at

Exhibit-26.

4. After investigation in the matter is

complete, charge sheet is filed, charge came to be

framed against the accused at Exhibit-10 for

offence punishable under Sections 306, 498-A of the

Indian Penal Code.

5. In support of prosecution case,

Vishwanath, father of deceased Chhaya is examined

205.02crapl

at Exhibit-28, her mother Vachchalabai at

Exhibit-31, her maternal aunt Laxmibai at

Exhibit-34, her real brother Himmatrao at

Exhibit-35 and the Investigating Officer at

Exhibit-36 as PW-5.

6. PW-1 Vishwanath, father of deceased

Chhaya, has stated that his daughter was married to

accused for more than 15 to 20 years and was

residing at Darwha. He has further claimed that

there was harassment at the hands of accused. It is

claimed that house mortgaged by accused was

released upon making payment of Rs.10,000/- by PW-4

Himmatrao, brother in law of accused. In his cross

examination, he has admitted that he was regularly

visiting his daughter Chhaya and Chhaya was also

frequently visiting his place at Digras. It is then

claimed that he was also in visiting terms with the

neighbour of deceased Chhaya whenever he used to

visit Darwha, place of resident of Chhaya. It has

also come on record that Himmatrao, son of

appellant was serving in the Army and used to visit

once in a year. The daughter in law was residing

205.02crapl

with PW-1 & PW-2 and there used to be quarrel

between said daughter in law and deceased Chhaya.

It has also come on record that accused shifted

from Darwha to Daheli along with deceased Chhaya in

view of change in place of his employment. He

without naming the lady has stated that accused has

kept concubine, whereas accused has alleged that

Chhaya has illicit relation with one Muslim boy.

7. PW-2 Vachchalabai has narrated same line

of evidence. However, stated that marriage of

Chhaya with accused took place 9 to 10 years back.

It has also come on record that elder daughter of

Chhaya is specially abled. In the cross

examination, it is brought on record that accused

made allegation against Chhaya of illicit relations

with muslim boy. It is also brought during the

cross examination of this witness that Chhaya never

expressed that she wanted to commit suicide for

allegations of adultery or cruelty practiced. If

the evidence of both these witnesses are evaluated,

it is required to be noted that issue qua cruelty

practiced by the accused is non specific and is

205.02crapl

vaguely narrated by witnesses. Neither specific

instances nor any incident of such cruelty is

narrated in the evidence of these two witnesses,

who are father and mother of deceased Chhaya and

father in law and mother in law of respondent-

accused.

8. PW-3, who is examined at Exhibit-34,

maternal aunt of deceased, in cross examination has

stated that statement under Section 161 of the Code

of Criminal was not read over to her by the police

and police has taken her signature. She then

claimed that police informed her about quarrels

between accused and Chhaya, which does not appear

to be the case of prosecution. There is hardly any

substance, so as to infer from examination and

cross examination of this witness to draw to the

case of prosecution.

9. PW-4 Himmatrao, brother of deceased

Chhaya and son of PW-1 and PW-2, who is examined at

Exhibit-35, has stated that accused was addicted to

liquor. According to him, there was harassment to

205.02crapl

Chhaya by beating and he got release the house of

respondent-accused from mortgage by making payment.

He has stated that police has never recorded his

statement. This witness has also not narrated any

specific instance or any event so as to infer

practice of cruelty and abetment of suicide of

Chhaya.

10. From the cumulative effect of evidence of

witnesses PW-1 to 4, there is hardly any material

to infer that accused has practiced cruelty on

deceased Chhaya, which has resulted into abetting

suicide by said Chhaya. Even if, testimonies of

these witnesses are analyzed independently, it has

not come on record that ingredients of Section 306

of the Indian Penal Code are satisfied. None of

the witness has stated that deceased Chhaya ever

narrated to them that being frustrated because of

approach of respondent-accused of having concubine

and meting out cruelty to Chhaya, she will commit

suicide. Rather from the evidence of PW-2, in law

of respondent-accused and mother of deceased

Chhaya, it has come on record that deceased Chhaya

205.02crapl

never expressed any instance when respondent-

accused had beaten her. This witness narrates that

Chaya never explained to her of getting feeling

like committing suicide because of the act of the

accused.

11. In the background of above, it has to be

inferred that there is hardly and material on

record to infer that respondent-accused has

committed offence punishable under section 306

(abetment to suicide) or under Section 498-A

(causing cruelty) of the Indian Penal Code.

12. The cumulative effect of evidence of PW-1

Vishwanath, father of deceased Chhaya, PW-2, mother

of deceased Chhaya, PW-3, paternal aunt and PW-4

Himmatrao, brother of deceased Chhaya does not

repose confidence in the prosecution story,

particularly in regard to the charge of cruelty and

abetment of suicide. There are non specific and

vague statement in the evidence alleging cruelty,

keeping of concubine by appellant-accused, which

has resulted into suicide by the deceased. In

205.02crapl

addition, it is to be noted that cause of death of

Chhaya is due to cardio-respiratory arrest because

of hanging. There are no external injuries noticed

on the body of deceased Chhaya. The allegations of

concubine are also non specific as neither

concubine is named nor any specific instance of the

act attributed against the accused qua his

behaviour so as to move away deceased Chhaya from

his family could be noticed. In fact, PW-1 and PW-2

are non specific about date of marriage of

deceased. However, having regard to the fact that

couple was blessed with three children, spending

togetherness for last more than 15 years, in my

opinion, is the act which is required to be taken

note of.

13. In view thereof, judgment of conviction

delivered by learned Adhoc Additional Sessions

Judge, Yavatmal, in Sessions Trial No. 149 of 1996,

on 12th March, 2002 is hereby quashed and set

aside. It is ordered that the appellant is

acquitted of the offence punishable under Sections

498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He be set

205.02crapl

forthwith, by cancelling his bail bonds, if not

required in any offence. Fine amount, if any, be

refunded back to the appellant-accused.

14. Criminal Appeal stands allowed in above

terms.

(N.W. SAMBRE, J.)

Tupe