Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Arun Kashinath Kokate And Ors on 30 April, 2021
Bench: S.S. Jadhav, N. R. Borkar
apeal.68.2004 final.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 68 OF 2004
State of Maharashtra } Appellant
Versus
1. Arun Kashinath Kokate }
2. Amar Kashinath Kokate }
3. Kashinath Dattatray Kokate }
4. Sangita Amar Kokate }
5. Sunita Kashinath Kokate, } Respondents
} (Orig. accused nos. 1 to 5)
-------------------
Ms. M.H. Mhatre - APP for the State/Appellant.
Mr. S.A. Rajeshirke for the Respondents.
---------------------
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : FEBRUARY 16, 2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : APRIL 30, 2021.
JUDGMENT :- (PER SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
1. The State of Maharashtra impugns the judgment and order
dated 20th May 2003 passed by 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Kolhapur, thereby acquitting the accused of the offence punishable
under section 304 (B) and 498(A) read with 34 of Indian Penal Code
in Sessions Case No. 20 of 2003.
2. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal
are as follows:-
Varsha 1 of 7
apeal.68.2004 final.doc
a) On 3rd October 2002, PW.7 - Raghunath Yadav,
who was attached to Juna Rajwada Police Station, as a police
constable, received a telephone call informing the police that
a lady had fallen in Rankala Lake. He summoned the fire
fighter squad and the body of unidentifed lady was removed
from the lake. A.D. No. 79 of 2002 was registered at Juna
Rajwada Police Station and thereafter, the investigation was
handed over to P.S.I. Koli. PW-8, P.S.I.- Koli had been to the
spot, he held the preliminary enquiry and recorded the
inquest panchnama of the dead body with the help of two
panchas. The inquest panchnama is at 'Exhibit-13'. Similarly,
the scene of offence panchnama was drawn, which is at
'Exhibit-14' and the dead body was sent to C.P.R. Hospital for
conducting Autopsy. The dead person was identified as
Rupali wife of Arun Kokate by her brother-in-law Amar
Kokate. Anil Khamker, father of Rupali lodged a report at
Juna Rajwada Police Station, on the basis of which Crime No.
110 of 2002 was registered for the offence punishable under
section 498(A) and 304 (B) read with section 34 of Indian
Penal Code against the accused persons. Rupali daughter of
Anil Khamkar was married to the respondent no.1 - Arun
Kokate on 28th November 2001.
3. At the trial the prosecution has examined as many as 9
witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. The prosecution
witnesses nos. 2,3,4 and 5 who happened to be the tenants of the
respondents are declared hostile.
Varsha 2 of 7
apeal.68.2004 final.doc
4. The further investigation was handed over to PW.9-Bajirao
Kalantre.
5. On 4th October 2002, PW.1-Anil Khamkar lodged a report at
Juna Rajwada Police Station, alleging therein that Rupali was married
on 28th November 2001, she was residing in the joint family with her
husband and others. That, one day all the accused persons had told his
daughter to fetch a vault from her parents and on that count had
started abusing and ill-treating her. When she visited her maternal
house, she had informed her parents about the same. That, two
months prior to 3rd October 2002, she was dropped in her maternal
house by her brother-in-law and her co-sister. PW.1 had requested
them to take her back. Accordingly, she had returned to her
matrimonial house. On the occasion of Ganesh Festival she had visited
her maternal house and at that time also she had reiterated about the
demand made to her by her husband and in-laws and therefore, she
was not willing to return to her matrimonial house. At the time of
Ganesh Festival, she was carrying pregnancy of about 5 months. PW.1
has proved the contents of the First Information Report, which was
lodged on 4th October 2002 and which is marked as 'Exhibit-17'.
6. In the cross-examination, it is admitted by PW.1 that even
after marriage, Rupali was celebrating each and every festival in the
house of his mother i.e. grandmother of Rupali. He admits that he had
not visited the matrimonial house of Rupali on any single occasion
since he is addicted to Alcohol and therefore, all the problems of
Rupali were being dealt with by his mother and his sister-in-law. It is
also admitted that Rupali was dropped at the house of her
Varsha 3 of 7
apeal.68.2004 final.doc
grandmother by her sister-in-law and her co-sister and not to the house
of PW.1. It is admitted that the said contention is incorrectly stated in
the First Information Report. He has refused to have stated before the
police that after the demise of Rupali, there were deliberations
between the relatives and then the First Information Report was
lodged.
7. PW.6- Suvarna Khamkar, who happens to be the paternal
aunt of deceased Rupali, she has reiterated the allegations levelled by
PW.1-Anil Khamkar. According to her, the accused had told Rupali, that
she should not return from her maternal house without the vault. That,
she was restrained from making telephone calls or from talking to
anybody and that she was made to starve.
8. According to her, on 3rd October 2002, the brother-in-law
and sister-in-law of Rupali had been to her house at bout 3.30 p.m.
and enquired with her as to whether Rupali had been to her house. She
had nurtured some suspicion and therefore, they had visited the house
of the accused and saw a gathering of people there. They were directed
to C.P.R. hospital, where they learnt that Rupali had committed suicide
in Rankala Lake. She had also admitted that after marriage every
festival was celebrated by Rupali in her maternal house and that PW.6
and her mother-in-law used to go to fetch her. That, in-laws of Rupali
had restrained her from visiting her parents house and therefore, they
all used to meet at the house of PW.6. She has admitted to have stated
before the police that the First Information Report was lodged after
due deliberations amongst the relatives. It is also admitted that in the
5th month of pregnancy a small function was held in the house of the
Varsha 4 of 7
apeal.68.2004 final.doc
respondents to celebrate the pregnancy of Rupali. The 7 th month
function was also to be celebrated in the house of the respondent.
There are omissions and contradictions in the evidence of PW.6.
9. PW.7-Raghunath Yadav had registered A.D. No. 79 of 2002.
It is admitted by him, in the cross-examination that there is a small
garden towards the northern side of the Rankala Lake where the said
lady was found dead and that the said spot is always crowded by
people.
10. PW.8-P.S.O, Shivaji Koli had conducted an enquiry in A.D.
No. 79 of 2002 before the investigation was handed over to PW.9-
Kalantre. PW.8 has admitted that he had not recorded the statements
of the persons who were present at the time of the said incident to
know as to how the said lady had fallen in the Lake.
11. PW.9-Bajirao Kalantre has proved the omissions and
contradictions in the substantive evidence of the witnesses. PW.9 has
admitted that he had not recorded the statements of the persons who
were present at the spot of incident, as they were not found. He has
subsequently stated that the said statements were not recorded as the
witnesses were not convenient to him. The postmortem notes are
admitted by the respondents. The postmortem notes would not
indicate any injuries whether external or internal on the person of the
deceased Rupali. It shows that she was carrying pregnancy of 20 weeks
and the cause of death is shown as 'Asphyxia due to drowning'
12. It is a case of suicide by a wife within one year of her
marriage. The defence of the accused is that it is not a case of suicide
Varsha 5 of 7
apeal.68.2004 final.doc
but a case of accidental death. It is pertinent to note that the demand
was in respect of a vault and not any ornament or cash or dowry in
cash or kind. There is no evidence to show that there was a demand of
dowry at the time of marriage neither soon after marriage and
according to the prosecution witnesses, ill-treatment and harassment
was meted out to Rupali on account of demand of a vault which
appears to be strange.
13. In fact, there has to be a nexus between the demand, the
harassment meted out for fulfillment of the demand and the death of a
wife in suspicious or unnatural circumstances. There was no demand
soon before her death. It is established from the evidence of the
witnesses that the respondents had celebrated the pregnancy of Rupali
in the 5th month in her matrimonial house i.e. soon before 'her death'
and this fact is established by the postmortem notes and which shows
that she was carrying five month of pregnancy at the time of her death.
14. There is no evidence to show that the death is preceded by
any cruelty or ill-treatment meted out to her. There is no evidence
adduced through the neighbours that Rupali was subjected to any
cruelty. In the absence of any legal or admissible evidence, it cannot be
held that the death of Rupali was a result of any ill-treatment meted
out to her soon before her death. The prosecution has not been able to
establish necessarily that it is a suicidal death since it is admitted by
PW.8 and 9, that they have not recorded the statements of the people
who were present at the spot. Neither the prosecution has been able to
establish the identity of the person who had telephonically informed
the police station about 'the fall' of a lady in Rankala Lake.
Varsha 6 of 7
apeal.68.2004 final.doc
15. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt. The reasons assigned by the learned Sessions Judge
for acquitting the accused are justified, no interference is called for.
Hence, appeal stands dismissed.
(N.R. BORKAR, J) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J)
Varsha 7 of 7
