The State Of Maharashtra vs Mohan Vitthal Chavan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6901 Bom

                                            1/6                       10 Appeal 1075-2007.doc




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1075 OF 2007

The State of Maharashtra
(Through Thane Nagar Police
Station, Thane)                                         ....Appellant
                                                        (Orig. Complainant)
                  V/s.

Mohan Vitthal Chavan
Age - 33 years,
R/o. Central Jail, Jail Police Line,
Room No.31, Thane.                                      ....Respondent
                                                        (Orig. Accused)
                                   ----
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State.
Mr. Shantanu Phanse, Advocate appointed for Respondent.
                                   ----

                                         CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATED : 30th APRIL, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 13 th

December, 2005 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Thane

acquitting the respondent (hereinafter referred as accused) of offence

punishable under Section 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman

subjecting her to cruelty) and 306 (Abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Accused was married to Jagruti who committed suicide on or

about 06/10/2003. The marriage had taken place four years before the

incident. The couple also had a son who was 2 1/2 years old. Accused

worked as a constable in Thane Jail and was residing with Jagruti in the

Purti Parab

2/6 10 Appeal 1075-2007.doc

police jail quarters. It is prosecution's case that Jagruti was being ill treated

by accused and on 06/10/2003 Jagruti unable to bear the harassment,

committed suicide. It is alleged that suicide of Jagruti by hanging was

communicated to P.W. 2, mother of Jagruti by accused who had also stated

to P.W. 2 that the previous night he had quarreled with Jagruti and that he

had slapped her.

3. After the incident, information was supplied by accused to

police which was recorded as accidental death. An enquiry was conducted

by one PSI Sonawane (who was not a witness) and on 08/10/2003

complaint was lodged by one Narayan Jankiram Lohar (P.W. 1) brother of

Jagruti. An offence was accordingly registered. Investigation was carried

out by PSI Patil (P.W. 6) attached to Thane Nagar Police Station. After

recording statements of witnesses, drawing spot panchanama, obtaining

postmortem report etc., charge-sheet was filed. Accused pleaded not guilty

and claimed to be tried.

4. To bring home the charge, prosecution has examined six

witnesses viz., Narayan Jankiram Lohar elder brother of Jagruti as P.W. 1 ;

Avantabai Jankiram Lohar, mother of Jagruti as P.W. 2 ; Vasant Gangaram

Tharatkar, neighbor of Jagruti as P.W. 3 ; Kamaleshwr Ashok Lohar, maternal

cousin brother of Jagruti as P.W. 4 ; Harun Nasarulla Khan, neighbor of

Jagruti as P.W. 5 and PSI Krishna Bhau Patil, Investigating Officer as P.W. 6.

Purti Parab




                                          3/6                         10 Appeal 1075-2007.doc

5. The fact that it was a suicidal death has not been disputed.

After considering the evidence, the Trial Court has acquitted accused on

various grounds and I would fully agree with the conclusion arrived at by

the Trial Court. I have to also note that as accused was not represented, this

court appointed Mr. Shantanu Phanse, an advocate practicing in this court

to assist the court on behalf of accused/respondent.

6. The evidence of P.W. 1, brother of Jagruti was that his mother,

wife and children visited the house of Jagruti and she mentioned to his

mother about the harassment by accused. He has not mentioned about any

personal knowledge and his is hear say evidence. Therefore his evidence is

not of much value.

7. As regards evidence of P.W. 2 mother of Jagruti, when P.W. 2

visited Jagruti about 15 days before the incident, it seems Jagruti informed

P.W. 2 that there were intermittent quarrels between Jagruti and accused but

Jagruti did not disclose the cause of such quarrels. P.W. 2 also suggested

that Jagruti did not disclose any harassment at the hands of accused which

means Jagruti never made any complaint to P.W. 2 regarding any ill

treatment at the hands of accused for bringing money or for any other

reasons. Even the FIR dated 08/10/2003 also does not mention about any

ill treatment or demand of dowry by accused. Though P.W. 2 says when

accused informed her about the incident and mentioned to her that on the

Purti Parab

4/6 10 Appeal 1075-2007.doc

day before the incident accused had quarreled with Jagruti and he slapped

her, in her cross-examination P.W. 2 says that the quarrel was not something

that was serious but was something which a husband and wife would

normally have. Therefore, there is no evidence that Jagruti was subjected to

any cruelty at the hands of accused.

P.W. 4 who is the maternal cousin of Jagruti in his evidence does

not indicate that he noticed during his visits to Jagruti's house that Jagruti

was unhappy. Even his statement to the police does not mention about any

harassment by accused to Jagruti.

P.W. 5's evidence only indicates that he informed accused that

his son was crying and nobody was answering door.

8. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly concluded that no case

has been made out to prove the offence charged under Section 498 A or 306

of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Mr. Phanse relied upon Inderpal Vs. State of M.P.1, Balasaheb

Ganpati Jadhav & Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra 2 and Muralidhar Alias

Gidda And Another Vs. State of Karnataka3 in support of his submissions

that there was no error in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

1         (2001) 10 Supreme Court Cases 736
2         2016 ALL MR (Cri) 3964
3         (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 730

Purti Parab




                                           5/6                        10 Appeal 1075-2007.doc

10. I have perused the impugned judgment, considered the

evidence, also heard Ms. Malhotra, learned APP and Mr. Phanse for

respondent. I do not find anything palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or

demonstrably unsustainable in the impugned judgment. From the evidence

available on record, there is nothing to substantiate the charge leveled

against accused.

11. There is an acquittal and therefore, there is double presumption

in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to

the accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that

every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless they are proved guilty

by a competent court of law. Secondly, accused having secured his acquittal,

the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and

strengthened by the trial court. For acquitting accused, the Sessions Court

rightly observed that the prosecution had failed to prove its case.

12. In the circumstances, in my view, the opinion of the Trial Court

cannot be held to be illegal or improper or contrary to law. The order of

acquittal, in my view, need not be interfered with.

13. Appeal dismissed.

Purti Parab




                                          6/6                      10 Appeal 1075-2007.doc

14. Mr. Shantanu Phanse was appointed to present case on behalf

of unrepresented respondent. He rendered good assistance for rendering

this judgment. Mr. Phanse's fees is quantified at Rs.10,000/-. High Court

Legal Services Committee to award fees of Mr. Phanse.

(K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

Purti Parab