State Of Mah. Thru Police Station ... vs Satish Madhukar Rajurkar & 3 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 2492 Bom

Judgment

                                                                  apeal226.07 3

                                       1

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

               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.226 OF 2007

State of Maharashtra,
Through Police Station Officer,
Tiosa District Amravati.                             ..... Appellant.

                                ::   VERSUS   ::

1.  Satish Madhukar Rajurkar,
Aged 30 years.

2.  Vilas Madhukar Rajurkar,
Aged 38 years.

3.  Sau. Sadhana Santosh Ugawkar,
Aged 34 years.

4.  Smt. Tulsabai @ Kausabai Madhukar
Rajurkar, Aged 55 years.

All R/o Shendurjana Bazar,
Taluka Tiosa, District Amravati.            ..... Respondents.

==============================================================
          Shri B.M. Lonare, Addll.P.P. for the Appellant/State.
          Shri H.D. Futane, Counsel for the Respondents.
==============================================================


                 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.W. SAMBRE, JJ.

DATE : MAY 11, 2017.

.....2/-

Judgment

apeal226.07 3

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : B.R. Gavai, J.)

1. By this criminal appeal, the State takes

exception to judgment and order passed by learned 6 th

Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati on

28.3.2007 in Sessions Trial No.223 of 2005, whereby

learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the

respondents/accused of the offences punishable under

Sections 498-A, 306 or 304-B read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code.

2. Deceased Sau. Vaishali was married to

respondent No.1/accused Satish Rajurkar on 5.5.2003.

Rest of the respondents/accused are relatives of

respondent No.1/accused Satish. Respondent

No.2/accused Vilas is brother of Satish, respondent

No.3/accused Sau. Sadhana is sister Satish, and

respondent No.4/accused Tulsabai is mother of Satish.

.....3/-

Judgment

apeal226.07 3

3. It is the case of the prosecution that after

marriage deceased Vaishali was residing with her

husband accused No.1 Satish and accused Nos.3 and 4.

Accused No.2 was residing in neighbouring house. It is

the case of the prosecution that respondents/accused

were ill-treating deceased Vaishali on account of non-

fulfillment of demand of dowry so also were suspecting

her character. On 2.7.2004, deceased Vaishali gave birth

to a male child. After her delivery, she came back to her

matrimonial house and again respondents/accused

started ill-treating her. Deceased Vaishali used to give

information regarding ill-treatment received by her to

her parents. When father of deceased Vaishali came to

the house of the respondents/accused, accused No.1

Satish gave an assurance to him that Vaishali would be

treated well. It is the case of the prosecution that on

21.8.2005 deceased Vaishali made a telephonic call at

.....4/-

Judgment

apeal226.07 3

house of Subhash Thakare and told her father that she

is in deep trouble as she was beaten and that he should

take care of her son. On the next day, deceased Vaishali

sustained severe burned injuries and succumbed to

burned injuries in the hospital. On basis of the report

lodged by father Kirshnarao of deceased Vaishali, Crime

No.76 of 2005 came to be registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and

4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 with Tiosa Police

Station. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-

sheet came to be filed to the Court of Judicial

Magistrate First Class at Chandur Railway. Since the

case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions,

the same was committed to the Court of learned

Sessions Judge at Amravati. Learned Sessions Judge

framed the charges. The respondents/accused pleaded

.....5/-

Judgment

apeal226.07 3

not guilty and claimed to be tried. At the conclusion of

the Trial, learned Sessions Judge passed the judgment

and order of acquittal as aforesaid.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri

B.M. Lonare for the appellant/State submits that learned

Judge of the Court below has grossly erred in acquitting

the respondents/accused when the prosecution has

examined inasmuch as 5 witnesses in support of the

prosecution case and had brought on record the fact

regarding ill-treatment on account of non-fulfillment of

demand of dowry. Learned Additional Public

Prosecutor further submits that the prosecution has

placed on record the evidence which would show that

ill-treatment meted out by the respondents/accused was

so unbearable that deceased Vaishali had no any other

alternative than to commit suicide.

.....6/-

Judgment

apeal226.07 3

5. On the contrary, learned counsel Shri H.D.

Futane for the respondents/accused submits that

learned Judge of the Court below has given cogent and

sound reasons as to why the prosecution has failed to

prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. He, therefore,

submits that no interference is warranted in the finding

of acquittal.

6. Learned Judge of the Court below, while

scrutinizing the evidences, has found that the evidences

of PW1 to PW3 are of the relatives and as such they are

interested witnesses. Learned Judge of the Court below

has, therefore, found that it would be necessary to

scrutinize their evidences with a greater caution.

Learned Judge of the Court below has further found

that though these witnesses speak about continuous ill-

treatment to deceased Vaishali, no details regarding ill-

.....7/-

Judgment

apeal226.07 3

treatment are given. It has further been found that all

these three witnesses had substantially improved their

case during the Trial. It has further been found that

except their word it is nothing on record to substantiate

their claim of demand of dowry. Learned Judge of the

Court below has further found that the F.I.R. was

lodged after two days of deceased Vaishali committing

suicide and no explanation for such inordinate delay

was offered.

7. It is further to be noted that PW2 Sau.

Sumanbai has admitted that Vinayak Choudhari was

real brother and he resides in their neighbourhood.

Said Vinayak Choudhari has admitted that two years

prior to the marriage, one day deceased Vaishali had

poured kerosene on her person and while she was about

to set herself on fire, he reached there and saved her.

.....8/-

Judgment

apeal226.07 3

He has further stated in his deposition that deceased

Vaishali was short tempered girl and due to domestic

quarrels, she has attempted to burn her in the incident

referred above.

8. He has further admitted that though he is

closely related to PW1 to PW3, he has not received any

information with regard to ill-treatment meted out to

deceased Vaishali.

9. By now it is a settled law that the defence

witnesses are also required to be given an equal

treatment as that of the prosecution witnesses. In view

of inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R. and in view of

evidence of defence witness, who is closely related to

deceased Vaishali, stating specifically that deceased

Vaishali was a short tempered woman and was having

the tendency of committing suicide, we find that no

.....9/-

Judgment

apeal226.07 3

error or perversity could not be noticed to the findings

recorded by learned Judge of the Court. In any case,

the law on interference in an appeal against acquittal is

by now well crystalized by the Honourable Apex Court

that unless finding given by learned Judge of the Court

below is found to be perverse or impossible, it is not

permissible to this Court interfering with the finding of

acquittal.

10. In the result, since no case is made out

warranting any interference, the criminal appeal fails

and is dismissed.

                   JUDGE                                             JUDGE

!!  BRW  !!




                                                                                 ...../-