The State Of Maharashtra vs Maruti Narhari More
2017 Latest Caselaw 2616 Bom

                                         1 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1034 OF 2002

 The State of Maharashtra                                   .... Appellant/
 (Through Bandgarden Police,                                Orig. Complainant
 Station, Pune)

                  versus

 Maruti Narhari More                                        ... Respondent
                                                            Orig. Accused
                                      .......

 •       Mrs.Geeta P. Mulekar, PP for the State/Appellant.
 •       None for the Respondent.

                                       CORAM            : C.V. BHADANG, J.

                                       DATE             : 24th MAY, 2017.

 ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal by the State against acquittal. The

Respondent was prosecuted for the offences punishable u/s 306

and section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC for short) for

ill-treating and for abetment of the suicide of his wife.

2. The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus:

That, now deceased Yamuna was married to the

Nesarikar

2 / 14 APPEAL-1034-02.odt

Respondent in the year 1996. The Respondent is serving as Civil

Engineer with Municipal Corporation, Pune. After their

marriage, the Respondent and his wife Yamuna were residing in

a flat at Rahul Co-operative Housing Society, Koregaon Park,

Pune. According to complaint lodged by PW-1 Vitthal Krishna

Shinde, the brother of Yamuna, it was claimed that Yamuna was

treated well by the Respondent during the initial period after

marriage. However, from the year 1997 the Respondent started

ill-treating Yamuna. It was claimed that the Respondent was

demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a flat and was also

suspecting character of Yamuna. She was also physically

assaulted. The family members of Yamuna tried to pacify the

Respondent, however, to no avail. It was claimed that the father

and brother of the deceased Yamuna gave Rs.50,000/- to the

Respondent. It was further claimed that the Respondent was

insisting for bringing more money.

3. According to prosecution case on 05/08/2001 at about

02.00 p.m. Yamuna attempted to commit suicide by setting

herself on fire. She was admitted in Budhrani Hospital, Pune.

 Nesarikar




                                          3 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

Her dying declaration was recorded by an Executive Magistrate,

in which she claimed that she set herself on fire after dousing

herself with kerosene. Yamuna died in the hospital in the

midnight on the same day. The dead body of Yamuna was taken

to her native place at Lonvire on 06/08/2001 where her last

rites were performed. The Respondent was not present at the

time of funeral.

4. Mr.Vitthal Shinde (PW-1) lodged a complaint on

09/08/2001 with Bandgarden Police Station, Pune, on the basis

of which an offence was registered. API Nanasaheb Hole (PW-

9), the Investigating Officer, conducted investigation in which

he recorded the statement of witnesses and drew a spot

panchanama. The Respondent came to be arrested. The inquest

panchanama of the dead body was drawn and it was sent for

post mortem examination. After completion of the investigation,

a charge-sheet came to be filed against the Respondent for the

offences punishable u/s 306 r/w 498-A of IPC, which was

eventually committed to the Court of Sessions.

 Nesarikar




                                            4 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the

accused for the aforesaid offences, to which he pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the accused is one

of total denial and false implication.

6. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses, namely;

Mr.Vitthal Krishna Shinde (PW-1), Mr.Prakash Bhagwant Falle

(PW-2), Mr.Hanumant Krishna Shinde (PW-3), Mr.Yashwant

Krishna Shinde (PW-4), Mr.Shankar Amarnath Chobe (PW-5),

Mr.Ravindra Jaykumar Jain (PW-6), Mr.Shankar Nivrutti Patil

(PW-7), Dr.Amit Audumbar Pavle (PW-8) and API Nanasaheb

Bhikaji Hole (PW-9). The prosecution also produced

contemporary record of the investigation. The Respondent

neither entered into the witness box, nor lead any defence

evidence.

7. The learned Sessions Judge framed following points

for determination;

 Nesarikar




                                               5 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt




                                            POINTS

1. Does prosecution prove that, the accused, during the period 1997 to 5/8/2001, at Koregaon Park, Pune, subjected Yamuna Maruti More to cruelty by harassing and illtreating her, on account of demand of money for purchase of flat and by suspecting her character and his wilful conduct was of such a nature, likely to drive said Yamuna to commit suicide, as alleged?

2. Does prosecution further prove that, on 5/8/2001 at 11.45 p.m. at flat No.12, Rahul Society, Koregaon Park, Pune, Yamuna committed suicide by pouring kerosene upon her person and by setting herself with fire being abeted by accused for commission of the suicide, on account of cruel treatment to her for fulfillment of money and suspecting her character, as alleged?

3. What offence the accused has committed?

4. What order?

8. The learned Sessions judge on appreciation of evidence

answered point Nos.1 and 2 in the negative and acquitted the

Respondent by a judgment and order dated 24/04/2002.

Feeling aggrieved the Appellant is before this Court.

 Nesarikar




                                            6 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

9. I have heard Smt. Mulekar, the learned Additional

Public Prosecutor for the Appellants. There was no appearance

on behalf of the Respondent. With the assistance of the learned

APP, I have gone through the record and the impugned judgment.

10. It is submitted by the learned APP that, Yamuna More

died within four years of the marriage in unnatural

circumstances. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence and

more particularly that the complainant Vitthal Shinde and

Hanumant Shinde who are the brothers of the deceased, clearly

bring out the aspect of ill-treatment of the deceased by the

Respondent, on account of the demand of money for purchase of

a flat and on account of Respondent suspecting character of the

deceased. It is submitted that the dying declaration recorded by

the Executive Magistrate Shankar (PW-7) is also natural and one

inspiring confidence, which corroborates the fact of the

deceased having committed suicide. It is submitted that the

learned Sessions Judge failed to properly appreciate the

prosecution evidence and the view taken by the learned Sessions

Nesarikar

7 / 14 APPEAL-1034-02.odt

Judge being an impossible view, needs interference by this

Court. The learned PP has extensively taken me through the

evidence of prosecution witnesses and submitted that the

offences u/s 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code are clearly

established, against the Respondent beyond reasonable doubt.

11. It is submitted that the evidence of the witnesses, more

particularly, that of Mr.Vitthal Shinde (PW-1) and Mr.Hanumant

Shinde (PW-3) and for the matter of that Mr.Yashwant Shinde

(PW-4) has to be tested on the touch stone of human conduct. It

is submitted that in all cases it cannot be expected that the close

relatives of the deceased, would rush to the police station in

lodging complaint. It is submitted that the delay in lodging the

complaint would not be significant and not would strike at the

root of the veracity of the evidence of these witnesses. She

therefore submits that the appeal be allowed.

12. I have carefully considered the circumstances and the

submissions made.

 Nesarikar




                                            8 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

13. The principal question in a prosecution for the offence

punishable u/s 306 of IPC is whether the deceased has met with

suicidal death. The learned Sessions Judge has answered point

No.2 in the negative. The Respondent/accused admitted the

Post-mortem report (Ex.8), the spot panchanama (Ex.21),

inquest panchanama (Ex.22), medical notification of death

(Ex.23) and injury certificate of Yamuna (Ex.24). The post-

mortem report shows cause of death as "shock due to burns". It

discloses that Yamuna suffered burn injuries to the extent of

91%. The material allegation against the Respondent is that the

Respondent was demanding money for purchase of a flat at

Koregaon Park, Pune. The record discloses that the Respondent

had purchased a flat in May 2001. There was house warming

ceremony conducted, which was attended by both the families

namely, that of the Respondent and the deceased. The

Respondent who is serving in the Municipal Corporation, Pune

as a Civil Engineer, was drawing monthly salary of Rs.10,000/-

and was also having agricultural land at his native place at

village Lonvire, Taluka Sangola, District Solapur. The

Nesarikar

9 / 14 APPEAL-1034-02.odt

Respondent had obtained a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from

Corporation. The Respondent claimed that his monthly income

from all the sources is Rs.25,000/- per month and excluding

expenses his income was Rs.15,000/- per month.

14. The evidence of the prosecution mainly consists of the

evidence of Vitthal Shinde (PW-1) and Hanumant Shinde (PW-

3), who are brothers of the deceased and the evidence of

Shankar Patil (PW-7), Executive Magistrate. In the dying

declaration (Ex.26), the deceased stated that on the date of

incident at about 02.00 p.m. a friend of her husband

(Respondent) had come to their house. After her husband went

away, the said friend Prakash Falle again came and entered the

house. After some time, the Respondent came home when the

door was closed. When she opened the door, the Respondent

found Prakash Falle in the house, on account of which, the

Respondent assaulted her and there was a quarrel between

them. As she was enraged due to conduct of the Respondent,

she went inside, poured kerosene on her and set herself ablaze.

 Nesarikar




                                           10 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

Nobody came to set of the fire. She claimed that she was

annoyed because of the conduct the Respondent and also on

account of the fact that the Respondent had assaulted her,

which was reason for setting herself on fire.

15. Mr.Prakash Falle was examined as PW-2. He states that

on the date of incident at about 11 to 11.30 a.m. he alongwith

Respondent went to purchase grocery articles. As the vehicle of

the Respondent dried, he went to a petrol pump near Gunjan

Theatre. He was waiting for the Respondent in the next square.

Even after waiting for about 30 minutes as the Respondent did

not come there, hence, he went to his house, when the deceased

opened the door. The deceased asked him come inside. They

were waiting in the gallery when the Respondent returned. On

that point of time some altercation took place between the

Respondent and the deceased. The Respondent told him that the

Respondent does not now want to go for purchase of grocery

and he left.

 Nesarikar




                                         11 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

16. It can thus be seen that the dying declaration coupled

with the evidence of PW-2 Prakash Falle, shows that Prakash

Falle was found in the house with the deceased when the

Respondent came home and there was some altercation between

the Respondent and the deceased and out of annoyance, the

Respondent went and set herself ablaze. If the dying declaration

is accepted as it is, one thing is clear that it was on the spur of

the moment and being annoyed by the conduct of the

Respondent that the deceased set herself on fire. However, there

is one difficulty in accepting the dying declaration namely the

spot panchanama (Ex.21), which is conducted on the same day

i.e. 05/08/2001, does not show presence of any kerosene on the

spot. The spot panchanama discloses that there was a partially

burnt nylon sari found on the spot which was seized. Thus, in

my considered view no implicit reliance can be placed on the

dying declaration. Even assuming that the dying declaration can

be accepted it was on the spur of the moment and in a fit of rage

that the deceased might have set herself ablaze.

 Nesarikar




                                             12 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

17. In so far as the aspect of demand of money is

concerned, according to prosecution case, it was in the year

1998 while the incident had occurred in 2001. It is not the case

of the prosecution that even after the amount of Rs.50,000/-

was allegedly paid to the Respondent, a demand of further

amount continued till 2001.

18. In so far as the evidence of Hanumant Shinde (PW-3)

and Yashwant Shinde (PW-4) is concerned, the learned Sessions

Judge has noticed certain omissions/improvements. A brief

reference to the evidence of Yashwant Shinde may be made at

this stage. According to this witness he is related to Krishna

Shinde, the father of the deceased. At the time of Diwali 1998

Krishna Shinde asked him and one Sambhaji Shinde to give

Rs.25,000/- each as he (Krishna Shinde) wants to give

Rs.50,000/- to his son-in-law i.e. the Respondent, for purchase

of a flat. Thereafter Vitthal Shinde (PW-1) who is another

brother of deceased and Hanumant Shinde also made similar

request. Accordingly, he and Sambhaji gave amount of

Nesarikar

13 / 14 APPEAL-1034-02.odt

Rs.25,000/- each to Krishna Shinde, which he paid to the

Respondent in their presence.

19. There are certain omissions which are brought on

record in the cross examination. This witness admitted that he

did not state to the police that at the time of Diwali 1998,

Krishna Shinde had asked for the money and the similar demand

was also made by Hanumant Shinde. He also did not state to the

police that he and Sambhaji Shinde paid an amount of

Rs.25,000/- each to Krishna Shinde. It would be significant to

note that Vitthal Shinde (PW-1) claims that his father Krishna

Shinde and Hanumant Shinde (PW-4) paid that amount behind

his back and without his knowledge.

20. There is nothing in the evidence of Yashwant Shinde to

show that Krishna Shinde or Hanumant Shinde had stated to the

said witness Yashwant Shinde that it was the Respondent who

was demanding the amount.

 Nesarikar




                                            14 / 14                   APPEAL-1034-02.odt

21. The learned Session Judge also noticed that complaint

was lodged by PW-1 after four days of the incident and before

that they had a discussion as to what complaint is to be lodged

and what is to be stated to the police. On consideration of

overall evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has proceeded to

acquit the Respondent. I have carefully gone through the

impugned judgment and I find that the view taken by the

learned Sessions Judge is a plausible view. It is now well settled

that unless and until the view taken by the Trial Court is

perverse or is an impossible view, no interference is called for in

an appeal against acquittal. (See Chandrappa and Others,

Versus, State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 Supreme Court Cases

415). In the result no case for interference is made out. The

Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(C.V. BHADANG, J.)

Nesarikar