The State Of Mah vs Rambhau Dattu Puri & Anr
2018 Latest Caselaw 537 Bom

                                                        Cri. Appeal No. 69/2006
                                          1


                  IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
              APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 69 OF 2006

       The State of Maharashtra
       Through Police Station Officer,
       Police Station, Kaij, Dist. Beed.                ....Appellant.

               Versus


1.     Rambhau Dattu Puri,
       Age 55 years, Occu. Labour,
       R/o. Dhotra, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.

2.     Rukhminbai w/o. Rambhau Puri,
       Age 55 years, Occu. Household,
       R/o. Dhotra, Tq. Kaij, Dist. Beed.               ....Respondents.


Mrs. D.S. Jape/Ansingkar, APP for appellant/State.
Mr. D.H. Jadhavar, Advocate for respondents.


                                CORAM     :   T.V. NALAWADE AND
                                              SUNIL K. KOTWAL, JJ.

                                DATED :       JANUARY 17, 2017.

JUDGMENT : [PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

1)             The appeal is filed against judgment and order of

Sessions Case No. 81/2004, which was pending in the Court of

learned 2nd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambajogai, District

Beed. The Trial Court has acquitted the respondents of the offences

punishable under sections 498-A, 307, 34 etc. of Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short). Both the sides are heard.

Cri. Appeal No. 69/2006

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

proceeding can be stated as follows :-

First informant Smt. Prabhawati was given in marriage to

Mahadeo Rambhau Puri, who is son of respondents about four

months prior to the date of registration of crime. It is the contention

of first informant that she was treated well for about one month

after the marriage, but after that the husband, parents of husband

and sister of husband started harassing her by saying that no dowry

was given in the marriage by her parents. It is her contention that

they were asking her to bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents and on

that count, they were even giving beating to her on occasions. The

incident in question took place about 15 days prior to the date of

registration of crime. It is contended that on that day at about 10.00

a.m. when the first informant was doing cleaning work, the mother

in law picked up quarrel with her by saying that she was not able to

do the household work properly and then mother in law gave beating

to her. It is her contention that then father in law started saying that

she should bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents. It is her contention

that the husband then said that she should be finished and then he

closed the door of house from inside. It is her contention that the

mother in law then made her to fall on ground and mother in law

forcibly administered insecticide to her. It is her contention that

when the insecticide was being administered, her husband and sister

Cri. Appeal No. 69/2006

of husband held her hands and legs and father in law held her head.

It is her contention that she became unconscious and somebody

shifted her to hospital.

3) It is the contention of first informant that in Government

Hospital her husband and her mother in law were by her side and

they gave threat to her not to disclose the incident to anybody. It is

her contention that after 2-3 days of incident when her father came

to the house of her sister in law at Daskhed to see her and then she

returned to the house of her parents and then she approached the

police.

4) The crime was registered for aforesaid offences. During

investigation of the offence, spot panchanama was prepared.

Statements of some witnesses came to be recorded. The record of

Government Hospital came to be collected and chargesheet came to

be filed against the mother in law and father in law. Charge was

framed. Both the accused pleaded not guilty. Chargesheet was not

filed against husband as he was absconding and chargesheet was

filed against sister in law in juvenile Court.

5) For proving the offences, prosecution examined five

witnesses. The Trial Court has not believed the first informant and

Cri. Appeal No. 69/2006

the circumstance like delay caused in giving of the report is

considered and acquittal is given.

6) The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of first

informant Prabhawati (PW 1). Her substantive evidence is as per the

aforesaid contentions which were made in the F.I.R. The F.I.R. is

proved as Exh. 16. She has given evidence that the insecticide was

forcibly administered by mother in law and other accused had helped

mother in law by holding her and by supplying insecticide to her

mother in law. She has deposed that she regained consciousness

when she was admitted in Government Hospital, Beed and at that

time, her husband and mother in law were by her side. She has

given evidence that when she recovered, she was taken to village

Daskhed, the place of her sister in law by name Chaguna and from

there she returned to the house of her parents. She has deposed

that due to threats given by mother in law and husband, she did not

disclose the incident to anybody and only after returning to the

house of father, she could go to police.

7) The evidence of only Medical Officer from Beed Hospital

could have given corroboration to the evidence of first informant. Dr.

Anant (PW 5) has given evidence that on 24.9.2003 the first

informant was admitted in Government Hospital by the husband of

Cri. Appeal No. 69/2006

first informant. He has given evidence that history of loose motion,

vomiting and convulsion was given and during treatment he realized

that it was a case of oral poisoning and so, he gave the treatment

accordingly. The original case papers were brought to the Court and

the M.L.C. prepared by the doctor is duly proved as Exh. 30. In the

cross examination, doctor has admitted that the first informant was

conscious throughout, but she did not give history about the

incident. His evidence shows that no injury was found on any part of

the person of first informant. Thus, the medical evidence is not

supporting the version of Prabhawati (PW 1) that poison, insecticide

was administered to her by using force.

8) The conduct of husband and mother in law was not

consistent with the guilt. If they wanted to finish first informant they

would not have shifted her to Government Hospital. The first

informant has avoided to admit that the husband and mother of

husband had shifted her to Government Hospital. It is surprising that

Dr. Anant (PW 5) prepared M.L.C., but there is nothing on the record

to show that police machinery was informed and police had made

inquiry with first informant in Government Hospital, Beed. In

ordinary course, Government Hospital must have informed police

about it and some record must have been prepared. That record is

not brought forward. Benefit of these circumstances need to be

Cri. Appeal No. 69/2006

given to accused persons.

9) Prosecution examined Dattatraya (PW 3), father of first

informant and his evidence shows that intimation was given to him

that first informant was admitted in Government Hospital. He had

visited the Government Hospital where first informant was under

treatment. He has tried to say that she was unconscious when

doctor has given evidence that that she was conscious. His evidence

shows that within few days the first informant was discharged by

Government Hospital, Beed and then she was taken to village

Daskhed. Thus, Dattatraya (PW 3) was keeping watch over the

developments and it does not look probable that he had not made

any inquiry with the first informant in Government Hospital, Beed. In

ordinary course, first informant would have disclosed the incident to

her father and father would have definitely approached the police

after learning about the incident, if the incident had really taken

place.

10) There is evidence of one more doctor like Dr. Dipak (PW

2), who has deposed that the first informant was brought to the

Rural Hospital, Kaij on 7.10.2003. There was complaint that the first

informant was suffering from throat pin, stomachache etc. The

history of admission in Government Hospital, Beed was given and

Cri. Appeal No. 69/2006

that history was noted by him in Rural Hospital. It can be said that

only after registration of crime, the first informant was sent to this

hospital and it was an attempt to create some record against the

accused persons. As there is such probability, not much weight can

be given to the evidence of this doctor and record created by him.

11) The aforesaid circumstances create probability that there

was no administration of insecticide by using force. However,

circumstances and record have created a probability that there was

consumption of insecticide. There is possibility that there was some

incident like incident of quarrel and due to that, first informant had

consumed insecticide. An attempt was made by her husband and

relatives of the husband to save her life and actually life was saved.

Due to these circumstances, this Court holds that it is not possible to

interfere in the decision given by the Trial Court in favour of

respondents. The view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view. In

the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The record of the case is to

be preserved as one accused is shown as absconding. Record be

sent to the Trial Court.

       [SUNIL K. KOTWAL, J.]              [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]


ssc/