The State Of Mah vs Dadasaheb Dongare And Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 7860 Bom

                                       1        Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                 BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                       Criminal Appeal No. 341 of 2002

     *       The State of Maharashtra.         ..   Appellant.

                      Versus

     1)      Dadasaheb Pandurang Dongare
             Age 23 years,Occupation : Agriculture.

     2)      Pandurang Baburao Dongare,
             Age 50 years, Occupation : Agriculture.

     3)      Kushiwartabai Pandurang Dongare,
             Age 45 years,
             Occupation : Household & Agri.
             All R/o Eknathwadi,
             Taluka Pathardi,
             District Ahmednagar.       .. Respondents.

                                  ----
     Shri. S.J. Salgare, Additional Public Prosecutor, for
     appellant.

     Shri. H.F. Pawar, Advocate, holding for Shri. A.H.
     Kapadia, Advocate for the respondents.
                                 ----

                                Coram:     T.V. NALAWADE &
                                           A.M. DHAVALE, JJ.

                               Date:     6 October 2017


     JUDGMENT (Per T.V. Nalawade, J.):

1) The appeal is filed against the judgment and

order of Sessions Case No.167/2000 which was pending in

2 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

the Court of learned 4 th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge

Ahmednagar. The respondents are acquitted of the

offences punishable under sections 304-B, 306, 498-A, 34

and under sections 504, 506, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Both the sides are heard.

2) In short, the facts leading to the institution of

the present appeal can be stated as under :

Deceased Nita was a daughter of the first informant,

Karbhari Khedkar. He is resident of Ghatshil Pargaon,

Tahsil Shirur, District Beed. She was given in marriage to

accused No.1 Dadasaheb on 26-5-1997. Accused Nos.2

and 3 are parents of accused No.1 and they are residents

of Eknathwadi, Tahsil Pathardi. No issue was born to the

deceased.

3) It is the case of the prosecution that for few

months there was no ill-treatment to Nita but after 2 to 4

months of the marriage the accused started asking the

deceased to bring Rs.50,000 from her parents. The

accused wanted that amount for installation of electric

motor and pipeline on the well for irrigation purpose. It is

3 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

the case of the State that to force the demand they were

giving beating to the deceased and on few occasions the

deceased was virtually driven out of matrimonial house.

The deceased used to disclose about the ill-treatment and

the demand to her parents.

4) In May 1998 the deceased was driven out of

matrimonial house and she was reached to her parents

house as the aforesaid demand was not met with by the

parents of the deceased. On that occasion, for 5 to 6

months Nita lived in the house of her parents. The parents

of the deceased then some how convinced the accused

and she was reached to the matrimonial house. She was

treated well for 4 to 5 months but after that again ill-

treatment was given to her on the ground that their

demand was not met with and she was driven out of

matrimonial house. The deceased again lived with her

parents. She was reached to the matrimonial house three

months prior to the date of the incident by the first

informant and his relatives. A meeting was held in the

village of the accused and on that occasion and in the

meeting the first informant gave Rs.10,000/- to accused

4 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

No.2, father-in-law of the deceased for purchasing electric

motor.

5) The deceased left the matrimonial house at

noon time on 29 August 2000 and her dead body was

found on the morning of 30 August 2000 in the well of the

accused. Prior to that the accused had made enquiry with

the parents of the deceased as she was missing.

Information was given to the Police Patil after finding the

dead body and he forwarded the information to the

concerned police station. Initially A.D. was registered and

during inquiry of the A.D., inquest panchanama was

prepared and spot panchanama was prepared. The dead

body was referred for post mortem examination. The

doctor, who conducted post mortem examination gave

opinion that the death took place due to asphyxia due to

drowning. Viscera was preserved and the C.A. report

showed that insecticide was detected in viscera. Father of

the deceased gave report to police on 31-8-2000 and the

crime came to be registered at about 1.30 p.m. for the

aforesaid offences. During investigation police recorded

statements of the relatives of the deceased on parents

5 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

side and charge-sheet came to be filed for aforesaid

offences. Charge was framed for the aforesaid offences.

The accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined in

all 8 witnesses to prove the offences. The accused took

defence of total denial. No defence evidence is given.

6) The trial Court has held that the prosecution

has failed to prove that there was demand of dowry and

the accused caused dowry death.

7) Karbhari (PW 1), father of the deceased has

given evidence that after one year of the marriage

demand of Rs.50,000/- was made by the accused as they

wanted to install electric motor and lay pipeline for

irrigating their land. He has given evidence that the

amount was not paid by him to the accused and so ill-

treatment was given to the deceased. He has deposed

that the accused were beating the deceased and

ultimately they drove her out of the matrimonial house.

He has deposed that during his visits to the matrimonial

house of the deceased, she used to disclose about the ill-

treatment. He has deposed that in the year 1998 the

6 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

deceased was reached to his house by accused No.1 and

he had said on that occasion that unless demand was met

with, they will not accept the deceased back in

matrimonial house. He has deposed that on that occasion

the deceased had lived in his house for 4 to 5 months.

8) Karbhari (PW 1) has given evidence that he and

others met the accused to settle the dispute and after

convincing the accused he reached his daughter to the

matrimonial house. He has deposed that after this

settlement the deceased lived in the matrimonial house

for 4 to 5 months but thereafter ill-treatment was again

given to her on the same count and the deceased was

again driven out of the matrimonial house. He has given

evidence that on that occasion also the deceased stayed in

his house for few months and few months prior to the

incident he had reached the deceased to the matrimonial

house. He has given evidence that in June 2000 he had

reached the deceased to the house of the accused. He has

given specific date as 4-8-2000 to say that on that date

demand of Rs.10,000/- was again made by the accused for

purchasing electric motor. He has given evidence that on

7 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

28-8-2000, one day prior to the incident, accused No.2 had

again demanded money and on that occasion accused

No.2 had given threat to finish the deceased. However, he

admits that on 29-8-2000 the accused No.2 had come to

him. He tried to say that on that day the accused had said

that they had finished the deceased.

9) Before discussing and appreciating the other

evidence, first the omissions which amount to

contradiction in relation to the F.I.R. given by Karbhari

need to be considered. He had not specially mentioned in

the F.I.R. that on 28-8-2000 accused No.2 had visited his

house for demanding the amount. He has not mentioned

in the F.I.R. that on 29-8-2000 the accused had come to

him and they had informed him that they had finished his

daughter. It is clear that he tried to exaggerate the things.

It can be said that the accused persons had informed on

29-8-2000 that the deceased was missing and they were

searching for the deceased. The aforesaid omissions were

pointed out to the witness and they are duly proved.

                                       8      Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

     10)              The version of PW 1 that he had given

Rs.10,000 to the accused is also not probable in nature. In

the cross-examination, he has admitted that on the first

occasion when the deceased had stayed in his house for

few months and when he had reached the deceased to her

matrimonial house, he had not taken the money with him

to meet the demand and the accused had accepted the

deceased in the matrimonial house. He has admitted that

the deceased had lived in the matrimonial house for few

months. There is no independent evidence to support the

version of PW 1 that amount of Rs.10,000 was really given

by him to the accused persons in the meeting. When there

is specific case that meeting was held and it was attended

by persons of both sides, some respectable persons from

the village of the accused could have been examined by

the prosecution to give independent evidence.

11) Cross-examination of PW 1 shows that he has

agricultural land and his financial condition is sound. He

or his family members had never worked as labour. He

has admitted that right from beginning labour work was

the source of livelihood for the family of the accused and

9 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

after the marriage the deceased was required to do such

labour work. This circumstance needs to be kept in mind.

The deceased was not accustomed to hard labour work.

There is one more circumstance. The deceased could not

conceive for about three years after the marriage. Such

circumstances may create frustration in the mind of

Indian lady and due to that a lady may take extreme step

like committing suicide.

12) The prosecution examined other witnesses like

Aprukabai (PW 5), mother of the deceased and Narayan

(PW 6), brother of the first informant. No independent

witness is examined. Both these witnesses have given

similar versions. They have also exaggerated the things in

similar manner. They have admitted that the deceased was

not accustomed to hard labour work. They have tried to

improve the versions which were given to police by giving

specific occasions when the demands were made and the

nature of the evidence given by them shows that their

evidence is vague and it is very close to imaginary things.

Thus there is no convincing evidence to prove that there

was demand of money from the accused persons. The first

10 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

informant has deposed on one hand that there was

demand of Rs.50,000 and on the other hand he has

deposed that he had given only Rs.10,000 to meet the

demand and the dispute was settled. No investigation was

made to ascertain as to whether electric motor was

purchased or pipe line is laid by the accused. Whenever

there is such allegation there needs to be independent

corroboration. Such allegations are ordinarily made by

close relatives of the deceased in such cases.

13) The conduct of the accused persons shows that

they had informed to the parents of Nita when they found

her dead body in the well. They had searched for the

deceased on the night between 29-8-2000 and 30-8-2000.

They had informed the relatives of the deceased on

parents side that deceased was missing. It can be said

that they realised that the deceased was missing on the

night of 29-8-2000. Spot panchanama shows that the well

is situated at a distance of one and half kilometers from

the village. Depth of the well was 30 feet and the water

was upto the height of 22 feet. Foot wears of the deceased

were near the well. There was electric motor to lift water

11 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

and there was electric connection taken for this motor.

There were steps to enter the well. Agricultural

implements like sickle were found at some distance from

the steps of the well. Pieces of bangles of the deceased

were lying near the footwear. By the side of the well there

was standing crop of sugarcane. These circumstances and

the other circumstances like no injury was found indicates

that force was not used against the deceased. The

circumstance that insecticide was detected in the viscera

shows that initially she must have consumed insecticide

but to avoid further possibility like anybody noticing her,

she had jumped into well to commit suicide. As the doctor

who conduced post mortem examination gave opinion that

death took due to drowning, no investigation was made by

police to trace the insecticide or the container from which

the insecticide was used.

14) For committing suicide there may be many

reasons for Indian lady. There is no specific evidence with

the prosecution which can be called as convincing to show

that some incident had taken place just prior to 29-8-2000

or on 29-8-2000 due to which the deceased took decision

12 Cr Appeal 341 of 2002

to commit suicide. Nobody from the village of the accused

is examined as a witness and only persons from the village

of the accused could have said few things about such

incident. Due to absence of such evidence and as there

are aforesaid circumstances particularly the deceased

could not conceive for about three years a probability is

created that the deceased decided to put an end to her

life. Thus there is other probability as a reason for

committing suicide. The trial Court has considered all

these circumstances. Due to these circumstances, there is

no need to discuss other evidence. In view of the aforesaid

discussion there is no possibility of interference in the

decision given by the trial Court. In the result, the appeal

stands dismissed. The bail bonds of the accused are to

continue for three months for giving opportunity to the

State to challenge the decision of this Court.

                 Sd/-                                   Sd/-
     (A.M. DHAVALE J.)                      (T.V. NALAWADE, J.)

     rsl