Bombay High Court
Sachin Ramchandra Teke vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 April, 2021
Bench: S.S. Jadhav, N. R. Borkar
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.825 OF 2012
Sachin Ramchandra Teke
Age 30 years, Occ.: Service,
R/o. Kosti Galli, Malshiras,
Taluka Malshiras, Dist. Solapur.
(Presently lodged at Solapur District Jail) ... Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of P.I. Malshiras Police
Station) ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.763 OF 2012
1. Sou. Suman Ramchandra Teke
Age 55 years, Occ.: Household
2. Sunil Ramchandra Teke
Age 35 years, Occ.: Teacher
3. Ramchandra Murlidhar Teke (deceased)
R/o Kosti Galli, Malshiras
Taluka Malshiras, Dist. Solapur. Appellants
Presently lodged at Solapur ... (Orig. Accused No.2
District Jail. to 3)
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
(At the instance of P.I. Malshiras Police
Station) ... Respondent
-------------------
Mr. Hrishikesh Mundargi, Advocate for the Appellant in
Apeal/825/2012.
Mr. Jayant Bardeskar, Advocate for the Appellants in Apeal/763/2012.
Ms. M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Respondent - State.
---------------------
pmw 1 of 22
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 05/09/2021 10:35:56 :::
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 11.02.2021
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 06.04.2021
JUDGMENT : (Per Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.)
1. The appellants herein seek to challenge the judgment and
order dated 29th June 2012 passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Malshiras thereby convicting the accused for the offences
punishable under sections 498-A, 302, 304-B r/w 34 of Indian Penal
Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in Sessions
Case No.69 of 2010 and sentencing them to suffer RI for a period of
one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo
further RI for one month for the offence punishable under section
498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The appellants are further
sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/- each, in default to undergo further RI for a period of one
year, for committing the offence punishable u/s.302 r/w 34 of IPC.
The appellants are further sentenced to suffer RI for a period of seven
years and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/- each, in default to undergo further
RI for a period of six months for committing the offence punishable
pmw 2 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
under section 304B r/w 34 of IPC. The appellants are further
sentenced to suffer RI for a period of five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.15,000/- each, in default to undergo further RI for a period of one
year for committing the offence punishable u/s 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act. The appellants are further sentenced to suffer RI for a
period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to
undergo further RI for a period of 15 days for committing the offence
punishable u/s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of these appeals
are as follows :-
(i) The accused no.1 - Sachin was married to daughter of
Netaji Bhanudas Dhavalshankh - P.W.2 on 28 th July 2010. The couple
was residing in a joint family at Malshiras. On 6 th September 2010
Ramchandra Teke, father of accused no.1 approached Malshiras Police
Station and lodged a report contending therein that at about 8.30 am
Sachin and his brother-in-law Mahesh (brother of deceased Megha)
had left the house as Mahesh was to return to Shingoli and at about
9.30 am his daughter-in-law Ishwari had gone to the bedroom of
Sachin for the purpose of sweeping, however, his wife had not opened
pmw 3 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
the door. Mansi had called upon her husband Sunil who was working
in Zilla Parishad School. All the family members requested Megha to
open the door however, there was no response and therefore, they had
to break open the door and they saw Megha hanging to the rafter with
a stole. The family members cut the stole lowered her and placed her
on the bed. Thereafter, they informed Sachin about the same. On the
basis of his statement A.D. No.20 of 2010 was registered at Malshiras
Police Station at about 1.15 pm. A message was sent to the parents of
Megha at village Shingoli. The parents had arrived at Malshiras. The
A.D. report is at Exh.67. The scene of offence panchanama and the
inquest panchanama were conducted in the A.D. inquiry. The panchas
for the inquest and the spot are the family members and relatives of
the deceased Megha who had accompanied her father P.W.2 - Netaji
Dhavalshankh. The scene of offence panchanama is marked at Exh.41.
P.W.2 - Netaji lodged a report at the police station alleging therein that
Megha had complained to him that she has been subjected to ill-
treatment and harassment for not fetching 1 tola golden ring for her
husband, she was also subjected to starvation. That, on the occasion of
Nagpanchami, Megha had visited her maternal house on 28 th August
2010 and had reiterated her complaint against the accused persons. On
pmw 4 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
19th September 2010 when accused no.3 - Sunil, brother-in-law of
Megha had come to fetch her, he was requested by P.W.2 not to harass
Megha on account of demand for dowry. On 22 nd August 2010, she had
reiterated her complaints to her father. On 4th September 2010 on the
occasion of Raksha Bandhan, brother of Megha i.e. Mahesh - P.W.4 had
been to the matrimonial home of Megha and that she was abused by
accused no.2 - her mother-in-law. On 6 th September 2010 the accused
no.1 Sachin had dropped Mahesh on S.T. stand Malshiras at 8.00 am
on his motor-cycle. Mahesh had boarded bus for Shingoli from
Malshiraj and soon thereafter, accused no.3 called upon P.W.2 and
informed him about the death of Megha in their house. P.W.2 saw his
daughter laid on a bed in her bedroom. There was a ligature mark on
the neck of Megha and a stole was seen suspended to the rafter in the
house. The other piece of the stole was lying near the dead body of
Megha. P.W.2 approached the Police Station and lodged a report on the
basis of which C.R.No.102 of 2010 was registered against the accused
for the offences punishable under sections 302, 498A, 304B r/w 34 of
IPC. The A.D. report was registered by P.W.6. Arun Hartad was attached
to Malshiras Police Station as Head Constable. The prosecution has
examined as many as 9 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the
pmw 5 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
accused. Implicit reliance is placed upon the evidence of P.W.2 Netaji,
father of deceased Megha. P.W.4 - Mahesh, brother of deceased Megha,
P.W.1 - Laxman Pakale, relative of deceased Megha who has proved the
inquest panchanama and the spot panchanama, P.W.7 - Dr. Ganesh
Waghmode who performed autopsy on the dead body of Megha and
P.W.8 - Investigating Officer - Suhas Bhosale.
3. Accused had examined 4 witnesses. The defence witness
no.1 is Dr. Shirish Valsangkar a Neurologist in Solapur City, with whom
deceased Megha was taking treatment, D.W. 2 - Eknath Ingawale
working as trainee Clerk in Sinhagad College of Engineering Korti,
Taluka Pandharpur, D.W.3 - Charudatta Bhangale who was officiating
as a Principal of S.K.N. Sinhagad College of Engineering and D.W.4 -
Shivaji Patil who was attached to Malshiras Police Station as a writer of
PI Mr. Bhosale.
4. It would be relevant to discuss the substantive evidence of
P.W.2 - Netaji Dhavalshankh, father of deceased Megha. According to
him, Megha was a Post-Graduate in M.Sc. (Mathematics) from
Aurangabad. That, at the time of marriage, the bridegroom was gifted
pmw 6 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
with Rs.75,000/- and golden ornaments weighing about 5 tolas. It was
agreed between both the families that as pure gold ornaments were
not available in Osmanabad, the accused would purchase the
ornaments from Baramati, the price of which would be paid by P.W.2.
That the value of the golden ornaments was about Rs.1 Lakh and P.W.2
had paid it in 4 installments of Rs.25,000/- each. The amount was
deposited in the account of accused no.1 by R.T.G.S. That, accused
no.1 Sachin i.e. the husband of Megha is working as a Lecturer in
S.K.N. Sinhagad College of Engineering, Tal. Pandharpur (Korti), Dist.
Solapur. His qualification is M.Sc (Mathematics), M. Phil.
5. The mark-sheets of Megha were handed over to
Investigating Officer on 3rd August 2010. P.W. 2 has proved the contents
of the FIR at Exh.48. It is admitted by P.W.2 that in 2005 Megha was
studying in 12th Standard. She had complained of headache and
therefore, on 17th January 2005 she was taken to Dr. Valsangkar at
Solapur. According to him, it was accused no.3 who had informed him
that Megha had committed suicide by hanging. It is the contention of
P.W.2 that he had informed the investigating officers that Megha had
died a homicidal death however, the said contention was not reduced
into writing.
pmw 7 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
6. The admissions in the cross-examination are as follows :-
(i) That, he had no knowledge about the cause of death of
Megha and he had only suspected that Megha had died an unnatural
death.
(ii) That, soon after passing the M.Sc. Examination, Megha
wanted to pursue Bachalor of Education Course, however, he preferred
to get her married as her name was registered in the marriage bureau.
There was no mediator in the settlement of marriage. The marriage
was settled and performed within one month. He had received the
proposal on 30th June 2010 and the marriage was performed on 28th
July 2010. He got their daughter married to Sachin - accused no.1
since it was the most suitable proposal for his daughter. He had learnt
that the accused no.1 was in the employment of Sinhagad Institute at
Korti as a Lecturer and that Sunil - accused no.2 also was serving as
Teacher in a Zilla Parishad School at Motewadi. The accused resided in
a big bungalow at Malshiras. They also have Wedding Hall at Malshiras
in the name of 'Ramrath'. Both the families had the same economic
status. The marriage was settled peacefully and that P.W.2 had no
regrets for settling the marriage of his daughter Megha with accused
no.1 Sachin even after her death. They had no grievance against the
pmw 8 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
accused after solemnisation of marriage as there was no quarrel
between the members of both the families.
(iii) It is also admitted that the accused persons had also made
golden ornaments for Megha. It is admitted that village Korti is at a
distance of 45 kms from Malshiras and that the accused no.1 was
commuting from Malshiras to Korti on his motor-cycle. P.W.2 has also
admitted that he had been to the Sinhagad College to inquire as to
whether the accused Sachin was on duty on 6th September 2010. He
has admitted the contents of the spot panchanama and that the door of
the bedroom was broke open. He had not witnessed any injuries
indicating the scuffle on the body of Megha neither he had met
medical officer who conducted post-mortem of Megha for ascertaining
the cause of death.
7. P.W.1 - Laxman Pakale is the panch for the scene of offence
panchanama and a relative of P.W.2. He has proved the contents of the
scene of offence panchanama. It is admitted that a hole was made near
the latch of the room since the plank of the said door was of ply wood.
It was clearly seen that there were two pieces of the veil/ stole. One
was suspended to the rafter and another one was on the bed. The said
stole had two knots. She was lying in the corner of the room. A scissor
pmw 9 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
was lying on the bed. The photographs of the scene of offence were
taken by the police. He had accompanied P.W.2 to Malshiras. He was
serving as Hawaldar in Zilla Parishad at Osmanabad. Height of the slab
was 9 ft. 8 inches whereas height of the dead body was 5 ft. 6 inches
and therefore, it was clear that a person with height of 5 ft. 7 inches
could not have touched the slab easily. There were no blood stains on
any of the seized articles. It is categorically admitted that they all
suspected that Megha must have committed suicide by hanging herself
and therefore, no complaint was made to the police in the course of
A.D. Inquiry.
8. It is the specific case of the prosecution that in fact P.W.4
Mahesh Dhavalshankh, brother of the Megha had visited the house of
the deceased on 4th September 2010 on the occasion of Raksha
Bandhan. On 5th September 2010, P.W.4 had travelled with the accused
and the family members. They had also been to Baramati. According to
him, the sister of accused no.1 and accused no.2 abused Megha. They
returned home on 5th September 2010 at about 1.00 am. P.W.4 had
occupied a room adjacent to the bedroom of the accused no.1 and
Megha on the first floor of the house. It is admitted by him that about
pmw 10 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
8.00 am he had left the house along with accused no.1 to proceed to
the S.T. Stand as he was going to Shingoli. At about 12.30 in the
afternoon, he received a call from his father and was asked to wait at
Barshi. He was further informed that Megha has died hence, they were
to go to Malshiras from Shingoli. He had accompanied his father to the
house of the accused and had seen Megha lying dead on a bed in her
bedroom. One piece of the stole was lying near the dead body of
Megha and the other was suspended to the rafter. Thereafter, the FIR
was lodged. It is admitted that he had found that his sister would be
compatible with the present appellant. P.W.4 has identified certain
photographs of the victim. In his presence on 22 nd August 2010, no
phone call was made to Megha. It is admitted in the cross-examination
that the accused had left the house in the morning at 8.30 am to reach
to the hospital. It is admitted position that Sinhagad College at Korti
was about 45 kms away from Malshiras.
9. P.W.6 - Arun Haral was attached to Malshiras Police
Station. He has proved the statement of accused no.4 on the basis of
which A.D. No.20 of 2010 was registered. P.W.6 has also admitted that
since the door of room of Megha was latched from inside it was broke
open and that Mansi, Suman and accused nos.3 and 4 had seen the
pmw 11 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
body of Megha in a suspended position from the rafter and only
because they thought that she might be alive her body was brought
down on the bed. A.D. Inquiry was then handed over to Mr. Bhosale.
10. P.W.7 - Dr. Ganesh Waghmode had performed autopsy on
the dead body of Megha. According to him, the ligature mark was
found above the thyroid bone cartilage. The cause of death was
asphyxia due to hanging. No external injuries except the ligature mark
were noticed at the time of post-mortem. He had found the following
external injuries :
"1. Ligature mark around the neck on left side extended from
angle of left mandible to the hyoid bone of about 8 cm x 2
cm.
2. Ligature mark on the right side extending from hyoid bone
to 5 to 6 cm inferior to the angle of right mandible laterally
upto right trapegious muscle with dimension of 8 cm x 2.5
cm."
11. In the cross-examination P.W7 has categorically stated that
in case of hanging ligature mark is always above the thyroid cartilage.
That upon the completion of autopsy P.W.7 and Dr. Sarje were of the
firm opinion that the cause of death of Megha was "asphyxia due to
hanging". Moreover, there was no fracture of hyoid bone and fracture
of the hyoid bone is rare in case of hanging. There were no marks of
pmw 12 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
struggle on the dead body just unlike in the case of strangulation. In
case of death by strangulation, marks of struggle are very common.
According to him, the police had not asked him to give his opinion in
writing as to whether death of Megha was by hanging or by
strangulation. The substantive evidence of P.W.7 would lead to a
conclusion that the possibility of strangulation is ruled out at the
threshold.
12. According to P.W.8 - Suhas Bhosale, the accused had
committed murder of Megha and camouflaged. It is admitted that it
was on the basis of the FIR that he had registered an offence under
sections 498-A, 304-B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC. He has demonstrated before
the Court the steps taken by him in the course of investigation. It is
admitted that he had visited the scene of offence prior to the arrival of
the complainant but had not filed any FIR on his own. The major part
of A.D. Inquiry was done after arrival of the prosecution witnesses i.e.
father and relatives of Megha. No complaint was made to the Police in
the course of A.D. Inquiry. It is admitted by P.W.8 that the room in
which Megha had committed suicide had only one door. Wooden
pieces of a hole in door were lying on the floor. He had also taken
opinion of the Forensic Department of Civil Hospital at Solapur and the
pmw 13 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
opinion he received was:
"Death of Megha can occur by entangling her neck into
noose of odhni."
13. The same was the opinion of the medical officer at Rural
Hospital, Malshiras.
14. P.W.8 has fairly admitted that even before sending the dead
body of Megha for post-mortem his personal opinion was that Megha
had died due to hanging. It is also admitted that it had transpired in
the course of investigation that the accused no.1 was present in the
institute from 9.00 am to 11.15 am on the date of incident. Admittedly,
the death of Megha had come to light only after 9.00 am. The Principal
of the College had also sent a letter to the Police informing them about
the presence of the accused no.1 in the college from 9.00 am to 11.15
am. It is also admitted that accused no.3 - Sunil was serving as a
teacher in a Zilla Parishad School at Manevasti even before marriage of
Sachin with Megha. The accused has examined defence witnesses.
15. D.W.1 - Dr. Shirish Valsangkar whose qualification is M.D
(Medicine) and Neurology. He is practising as a Neurologist in Solapur
City. On the basis of the records of the Hospital, he has deposed before
pmw 14 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
the Court that on 17th January 2005, Megha had visited the Hospital
along with her father with a history of headache. She was clinically
examined. Megha had disclosed to the Doctors that for the past two
years she had a peculiar feeling over occipital region, pain in temporal
region occurring occasionally and lasting for 6 to 7 hours generally
brought on by loud noise and stress. Megha had also disclosed that she
was suffering from sleeplessness. He had prescribed certain medicines
to her and the date of follow-up was 17 th February 2005. She had
reiterated that she was feeling better but the peculiar feeling persists.
She had also disclosed that in a state of stress and hunger she was
suffering from headache. D.W.1 has placed on record the photocopies
of the OPD register which is at Exh.151. He had received a letter from
the police inquiring about the ailment of Megha and he had
communicated his opinion on 16th March 2010. That, Megha had not
visited for further follow-up after 17th February 2005. The opinion of
Dr. Valsangkar is that the ailment of Megha could be categorised as
tension type headache which occurs secondary to anxiety or
depression. Her tolerance level was low. She was sensitive by nature
and therefore, D.W.1 thought that she was suffering from emotional
stress because of her sensitive nature. Symptoms of Megha were
pmw 15 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
related to mental depression. He has opined in the cross-examination
that it could not be said by any stretch of imagination that a person
who is a post-graduate M.Sc. in Mathematics is not likely to have
mental stress.
16. D.W.2 - Eknath Ingavale was working as Trainee Clerk in
the Sinhagad College of Engineering at Korti, Taluka Pandharpur. He
had brought along with him the list of time-table, duty hours of the
lecturers and professors and the muster roll of the lecturers and
professors. According to him, the accused no.1 was teaching degree
classes of Engineering and M.B.A. also. He was working as Assistant
Professor of Mathematics. On the basis of the muster roll he has stated
before the Court that on 6th September 2010 accused no.1 had arrived
in the college at 9.00 am and signed the muster in his presence.
Accused no.1 had left the college between 11.00 to 11.15 am since
somebody had come to call him. He was in a hurry and therefore, had
not signed the movement register while leaving college. That all staff
members and lecturers use the Bio-metric machine which is installed in
the college since the year 2011.
pmw 16 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
17. D.W.3 - Charudatta Bangal was officiating as Principal of
S.K.N. Sinhagad College. He has proved that on the date of incident
i.e. 6th September 2010 accused no.1 had reported to the college at
about 9.00 am.
18. D.W.4 - Shivaji Patil was also attached to Malshiras Police
Station. He was also a part of investigation in Crime No.102/2010. He
had accompanied Mr. Bhosale. He has also recorded the statement of
witnesses. He was a writer for Mr. S.S. Bhosale, Senior PI of Malshiras
Police Station. He has recorded the statement of witnesses as per the
directions of Mr. Bhosale and had also received the letter from S.K.N.
Sinhagad Engineering College.
19. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is
cogent and convincing evidence to show that there was no dispute
between the members of both the families over dowry or the golden
ornaments. That, Megha had committed suicide just within two
months of her marriage which would prima facie show she was getting
married against her wish. It is submitted that the main consideration
for the accused no.1 to get married with Megha was her qualification
as M.Sc (Mathematics) since the accused no.1 himself was M.Phil. and
pmw 17 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
was working as a lecturer in Sinhagad College whereas accused no.3
was working as a teacher in Zilla Parishad School. It is also submitted
that Dr. Valsangkar has clearly established that Megha was a sensitive
person. She used to be under mental stress in 2005 itself. That, the
accused cannot be held responsible for the suicide of Megha. The
medical evidence on record coupled with the substantive evidence of
P.W.7 would clearly establish that the cause of death was "asphyxia due
to hanging". The reasons for commission of suicide by Megha were
unknown to the accused and hence, according to the learned counsel,
the accused deserves to be acquitted of all the charges.
20. Per contra, the learned APP submits that Megha has died in
her matrimonial home and the reason for her mental depression and
suicide ought to have been known to the accused persons. That, on
three occasions before the incident Megha has been said to have
complained to her father and brother about ill-treatment meted out to
her on the ground that the family members and relatives of the
accused were not honored properly at the time of marriage and that
P.W.2 had not fulfilled the demand of golden ring of one tola. The
learned APP supports the judgment of the Sessions Court and submits
that no interference is called for.
pmw 18 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
21. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the
deceased Megha had married accused no.1 only in July 2010. That,
there were no disputes between the members of both the families. The
spouses were matching in their educational qualifications. There is
absolutely no material on record to show that there were any
differences between the spouses.
22. It is established beyond reasonable doubt that on the day of
incident i.e. on 6th September 2019 the accused no.1 was accompanied
by none other than his younger brother-in-law, P.W.4 Mahesh. The
accused no.1 had dropped him at the S.T. stand and had proceeded to
Korti to attend his duties. The muster roll also shows that he had
actually attended the college at about 9.05 am. The clerical staff, the
Principal and the writer of the Investigating Officer Ms. S.S. Bhosale
has proved the same. Moreover, the door was latched from inside. The
door had to be broke open. Only in a hope that Megha must be
surviving, she was lowered from the suspension of the noose of
veil/stole. The medical evidence also proves beyond reasonable doubt
that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging and therefore,
conviction for an offence under section 302 of IPC was unwarranted.
pmw 19 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
Besides the defence witness no.1 - Dr. Valsangkar has proved that ever
since 2005 Megha was suffering from mental stress and that she was
sensitive girl.
23. By no stretch of imagination, the accused could be
convicted for an offence punishable under section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code in view of the medical evidence on record. P.W.7 has proved
that the cause of death was asphyxia due to hanging. Moreover, the
deceased had committed suicide soon after her brother had left the
house. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that
the possibility that her brother had refused to take her along with him
to her maternal house also cannot be ruled out, needs to be taken into
consideration. In any case, there is cogent and convincing evidence to
show that she was not in the company of her husband or her brother-
in-law just before the incident. There was no grievance against mother-
in-law and the death had come to light only when her co-sister had
been to her room. The door had to be broken open. Therefore, no case
is made out for conviction under section 498A of IPC. In cases like the
present one just because wife has died in her matrimonial house within
two months of marriage, the entire family cannot be stigmatized as
pmw 20 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
having committed offences as serious as an offence under section 302
of IPC. In absence of legally admissible evidence there cannot be moral
conviction.
24. It is true that the presumption under section 113B of
Indian Evidence Act was attracted in this case as the wife had died in
her matrimonial house within 7 years. However, it is a rebuttable
presumption and this presumption does not absolve the prosecution
from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. In this case, the
accused have rebutted the presumption by examining the defence
witnesses. The evidence of the defence witnesses is to be treated at par
with the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. The surrounding
circumstances also need to be taken into consideration. In the present
case, it cannot be said that she has died in suspicious circumstances. It
is a case of suicide within two months of marriage. The prosecution
has failed to prove any ill-treatment meted out to the victim within two
months of her matrimony. The offence under sections 3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act are not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The
money was transferred in favour of the accused in lieu of the golden
ornaments purchased by them as per the agreement between both the
parties.
pmw 21 of 22
apeal-825.12, 763.12.doc
25. It prima facie appears that the deceased Megha was willing
to continue her education, however, she was married hurriedly by her
parents since they found a suitable match for their daughter in all
aspects. However, she did not seem to be happy with the marriage and
in all probabilities, in a state of stress had committed suicide. All these
facts speak for themselves and the appellants/accused deserve to be
acquitted.
26. In view of the evidence discussed above, the impugned
judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the appeals
deserve to be allowed. Hence, we pass the following order :-
ORDER
(i) Appeals are allowed;
(ii) The conviction and sentence passed by the Adhoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Malshiras vide judgment and
order dated 29th June 2012 in Sessions Case No.69 of 2010
stands quashed and set aside;
(iii) The accused - appellants are acquitted of all the charges
levelled against them;
(iv) Bail bonds stand cancelled;
(v) Fine amount, if paid, be refunded;
(vi) Appeals are disposed of in above terms.
(N. R. BORKAR, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
pmw 22 of 22
