State Of Mah.Thr. Pso Amravati vs Rajendra Kashirao Bhujade
2017 Latest Caselaw 2550 Bom

                                      1                             apeal333.04.odt




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

                               NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR



                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 333 OF 2004



              State of Maharashtra,
              Through Police Station Officer, 
              P.S. Mahuli Jahagir, 
              District Amravati                ......   APPELLANT


              // VERSUS //


              Rajendra s/o. Kashirao Bhujade,
              Aged about 35 years,
              R/o. Dawargaon, 
              Dist. Amravati                .....     RESPONDENT

      -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
           Smt. Nivedita Mehta, Additional Public Prosecutor for
           Appellant / State
           Mr.A.R.Wagh, Adv. for the Respondent.
       -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-


                                      CORAM     :  S.B.SHUKRE,  J.

                                      DATE         :  16.5.2017. 





                                      2                                apeal333.04.odt


      ORAL JUDGMENT                           :


      1                This   is   an   appeal   preferred   against   the

judgment and order dated 3.2.2004 passed in Sessions Trial

No. 116/2002 by the learned Additional Session Judge,

Amravati, whereby this respondent as well as his close

relatives / co-accused - Ravindra Bhujade, Chhaya Bhujade

and Sushilabai Bhujade, have been acquitted of the offences

punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with

Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

      2                Deceased   Archana   was   the   wife   of   the

      respondent.     Their   marriage   was   solemnized   in   the   year

1998. At that time, respondent was residing in a joint

family consisting of himself, his mother Sushilabai and

brother Rajendra and Chhaya, wife of Ravindra. After the

marriage, deceased Archana joined the company of

respondent and started cohabiting with the respondent.

She was well treated initially for 3 to 4 months, but it

appears that differences arose between deceased Archana

3 apeal333.04.odt

on the one hand and the respondent and his close relatives

on the other. In order to find solution, the respondent took

a decision to have a separate residence and mess and,

therefore, he together with deceased Archana moved out of

the joint family house at village Dawargaon, District

Amravati. However, the differences between the two did

not dissipate, rather, there was increase in them. It is

alleged that respondent used to demand amount of Rs.

20,000/-, from deceased Archana and her father in order to

finance digging of well in his agricultural field and his close

relatives used to support him in such a demand. It was

further alleged that on failure of deceased Archana and her

father to meet illegal demand, respondent and his close

relatives used to harass and ill-treat deceased Archana.

Deceased Archana was also allegedly ill-treated by the

respondent and his close relatives for the reason of her

inability to bear a child. Fed up with the ill-treatment,

deceased Archana put an end to her life by consuming

poison on 31.1.2002 in the late afternoon hours, in her

house at village Dawargaon. Information of the death was

4 apeal333.04.odt

passed on to the police and A.D. inquiry was instituted.

Post-mortem Report revealed the cause of death to be

poisoning. Necessary panchanamas were drawn out.

3 The matter was about to be closed as a case of

suicidal death when on 3.2.2002, at about 1.45 p.m.,

Santosh - brother of the deceased visited Police Station and

lodged his report against the respondent and his close

relatives. The report was reduced into writing and police

registered offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

306 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code against the

respondent, his brother, brother's wife and mother. Further

investigation was carried out. After completion of

investigation, a charge-sheet came to be filed against the

respondent and his said close relatives. As one of the

offences involved was exclusively triable by the Sessions

Court, the learned Magistrate committed the case to

Sessions Court for trial against all of the accused including

the respondent, in accordance with law. Accordingly, they

were tried for the said offences by the learned Additional

5 apeal333.04.odt

Sessions Judge and on merits of the case, the learned

Sessions Judge, found that the prosecution could not prove

beyond reasonable doubt the ill-treatment and harassment

as contemplated under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

and consequently, the facts necessary for proving the

charge of abatement of suicide and so acquitted the

respondent, his brother, brother's wife and mother of all the

offences i.e. offences punishable under Sections 498-A and

306 r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, with which they

were charged and tried. The judgment was rendered on

3.2.2004. Not being satisfied with the judgment of

acquittal against the present respondent, the State is before

this Court in the present appeal.

4 I have heard Smt. N.P. Mehta, learned

Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and Shri

A.R.Wagh learned counsel for the respondent. I have gone

through the record of the case and also the impugned

judgment and order.

                                     6                                apeal333.04.odt

      5                According   to   learned   Additional   Public

Prosecutor for State, the inferences drawn by the learned

Additional Sessions Judge do not logically arise from the

facts on record as, this is not a case wherein all the

witnesses have spoken about ill-treatment or harassment in

general terms. She submits that, the father of the deceased

P.W. 2 Maroti, has clarified the nature of ill-treatment when

he states in so many words that he used to be told by his

daughter about the beatings that she received at the hands

of the respondent. She further submits that even the illegal

demand of Rs. 20,000/- to finance digging of well has been

proved by the prosecution witnesses. But, the learned

Additional Sessions Judge has erroneously concluded and

that too simply on the basis of some suggestions given to

the prosecution witnesses, that it was improbable for the

respondent or his close relatives to put up a demand of

some money in order to enable the respondent to dig a well

in his agricultural field. P.W. 4 Kaushalyabai, the

neighbour of father of deceased is an independent witness

and even she supports the evidence of the key prosecution

7 apeal333.04.odt

witnesses namely P.W. 2 - Maroti, P.W. 3 - Ramkrushna

and P.W. 5 Santosh, so submits the learned A.P.P..

Therefore, according to learned A.P.P., this is a fit case for

interference with the impugned judgment and order.

6 Shri. A.R. Wagh learned counsel for the

respondent submits that the view taken by the learned

Additional Session Judge on the basis of the evidence

available on record, is plausible and, therefore, as per the

settled law, it would not be permissible for this Court to

substitute another view just because some other view is

possible. According to him, merely because some other

inferences could possibly have been drawn in the instant

case, the judgment can not be branded as perverse. Thus,

he submits that no interference in the instant case is

warranted.

7 Upon perusal of the judgment and order as well

as the evidence of key prosecution witnesses, P.W. 2 -

Maroti, P.W.3 - Ramkrushna, P.W. 4 - Kaushalyabai and

8 apeal333.04.odt

P.W. 5 - Santosh, I find that there is substance in the

argument of the learned counsel for respondent and no

merit in the argument of learned Additional Public

Prosecutor.

8 If the evidence of P.W. 2- Maroti, P.W. 3 -

Ramkrushna, P.W. 4 - Kaushalyabai and P.W. 5 - Santosh,

is considered together, one would notice that all of them

are speaking about harassment or ill-treatment of deceased

Archana at the hands of respondent only in general terms.

P.W. 3 - Ramkrushna a relative of P.W. 2 - Maroti has not

elaborated as to what kind of ill-treatment that deceased

Archana was subjected to by the respondent. He only says

about some sarcastic remarks being passed by respondent

on account of failure to bring amount of Rs. 20,000/- by

her father. Same is true about P.W. 4 Kaushalyabai, the

neighbour of father of deceased and, whom, the

prosecution would like to term as an independent witness

though, I do not see her to be an independent witness for

the reason that she is a neighbour of the father of the

9 apeal333.04.odt

deceased and is quite likely to exhibit a tendency of

faithfully performing neighbour's duty. Be that as it may.

Even this witness does not say as to what kind of ill-

treatment that the deceased was handed out by the

respondent. She just says that the deceased was ill-treated

and that is true of even P.W. 5 - Sanjay, the brother of the

deceased, who testifies more or less on the same lines. The

only difference that he makes is about the physical as well

as mental ill-treatment. But here again, he does not

elaborate as to what was the nature of physical ill-

treatment and mental ill-treatment.

9 When the prosecution witnesses speak of some

sarcastic remarks or physical or mental ill-treatment, one

would have to view such statements as only opinions of the

witnesses. In order to consider a fact or set of facts to be

constituting an ill-treatment or harassment as contemplated

under section 498(A) I.P.C., it is necessary that witnesses

testify before the court the acts or the particular deeds

committed or performed by the accused so that an

10 apeal333.04.odt

independent agency like the Court, whose job it is to

determine and adjudicate if any offence is committed or

not, would be in a position to perform its job of judging

properly. It is for the witnesses to state the facts and not

the impression that the facts give, and it is for the courts to

adjudge about what impression the hard facts make or in

other words to determine if the facts amount to ill-

treatment or not. Here, the witnesses have expressed an

opinion of ill-treatment or harassment and thus themselves

have performed the job of the court without elaborating

anything which, in their opinion, went into their perception

of ill-treatment or harassment. As the witnesses namely

P.W. 3 Ramkrushna, P.W. 4 Kaushalyabai and P.W. 5

Santosh have not elaborated anything about the nature of

ill-treatment or harassment, it would not be possible for this

court to accept their simple opinion that, there was ill-

treatment of deceased at the hands of the respondent.

10 P.W. 2 - Maroti, was the father of deceased.

Even P.W.2 - Maroti has maintained silence over the nature

11 apeal333.04.odt

of the ill-treatment and its consistency and so on. Of

course, P.W. 2 - Maroti has stated, as rightly submitted by

learned A.P.P., that he used to be told by the deceased

Archana about the beatings that she used to receive at the

hands of respondent on account of her failure to meet the

illegal demand of money. But, I must say, even this part of

evidence of P.W. 2 - Maroti, lacs those essentials which

constitute an offence of cruelty u/s 498-A IPC. This

witness, ought to have stated the period of the beatings and

their consistency. But, he makes a general statement about

beatings that were given to deceased Archana by the

respondent and states nothing more to enable the Court to

consider whether the statement reveals essential

ingredients of the offence of cruelty or not. Then, it is also

surprising that the other key witnesses, who claim that

deceased Archana used to tell them everything about the

harassment that respondent used to give her, do not say

anything about their being told by deceased Archana about

her beatings at the hands of the respondent. Therefore,

that part of the evidence of P.W. 2 - Maroti which pertains

12 apeal333.04.odt

to revelations made to him by the deceased about her

beatings does not inspire confidence. Even otherwise, in

the absence of necessary details of alleged beatings, one has

to say that this part of testimony of P.W. 2 Maroti, if it is

assumed to be true for the sake of argument, would have to

be treated as relating to some stray incidents of beating and

such stray incidents surely would not fall within the sweep

of the offence of cruelty as contemplated u/s 498-A IPC.

11 In order to constitute an offence of cruelty,

there has to be some willful conduct of such a nature as is

likely to drive a woman to suicide or to cause injury or

danger to life, limb or health. It can also be of the kind

which is performed with a view to coercing the woman or

any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand of

any property or valuable security. Willful conduct and / or

coercing a woman for achieving a particular purpose as

covered under the explanations (A) and (B) to section

498(A) I.P.C. is necessary and for that purpose, it is also

necessary for the witness to state the period of the

13 apeal333.04.odt

harassment, may be by some approximation, and its

frequency or consistency. In the absence of these details, it

would be risky for the Court to make any conclusion

regarding willful conduct and / or coercion of a woman for

meeting an unlawful demand. These facts have not clearly

come on record in the instant case.

12 In the circumstances, I am of the view that the

prosecution evidence on the point of harassment or ill-

treatment is insufficient for reaching a conclusion that

offence of cruelty punishable under Section 498-A IPC has

been committed by the respondent. It would then follow

that the facts essential for establishing commission of the

offence of abatement of suicide punishable under Section

306 IPC are also not proved beyond reasonable doubt by

the prosecution.

13 So far as suicidal death is concerned, I must

say, there is no dispute about the same. The learned

Additional Sessions Judge has found that the other

14 apeal333.04.odt

possibilities like accidental and homicidal nature of death

are already ruled out in the instant case. Then a question

would arise as to what was it which made the deceased feel

so desperate to put an end to her life and the answer to it

could be found in the admissions given by the P.W. 2 -

Maroti, P.W. - Kaushalyabai and P.W.-3 Ramkrushna who

have admitted that deceased Archana was being given

medical treatment at the behest of her husband. P.W. 4 -

Kaushalyabai is more specific in her admission. She admits

that deceased Archana used to be taken by her husband to

a doctor regularly for giving her treatment of the ailment of

leucorrhea. Of course, this disease is not known to be

incurable or of such a nature as to make a person feel

helpless. But, one never knows. The human psychology is

so complex that one can not predict that a factor which is

not so serious generally may assume a graver form and

create extremely adverse impact on the human mind, in a

given case. It may be rare but still it can happen. Perhaps,

this can be one such rare case. But, that is only a

15 apeal333.04.odt

guesswork made by considering the evidence available on

record.

14 Thus, having considered the prosecution

evidence in its entirety, I find that the view taken by the

learned Additional Sessions Judge is plausible. It is not an

impossible view. It does appear to be logical in the context

of the facts established on record and, therefore, as rightly

submitted by learned counsel for respondent, it would be

impermissible for this Court to make any interference with

the impugned judgment and order. The appeal deserves to

be dismissed.

Appeal stands dismissed.

JUDGE

belkhede