Pramila Tanaji Jadhav vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 10921 Bom

                      1/11                                                cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc




                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2021

                      Sou. Pramila Tanaji Jadhav
                      Age : 38, Occ : Housewife,
                      R/o. Soni, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli             ...Appellant
                      At present Sangli District Jail:2, Sangli             (Accused No.3)

                      Versus

                      1. State of Maharashtra
                      2. Smt. Akkatai Ananda Kadam
                      R/o: Soni, Tal : Miraj, Dist. Sangli
                      (Through C.R. No. 359/2019
                      Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli)         ....Respondents
                                                          ****
                      Mr.Kedar J. Patil for appellant.
                      Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for respondent No.1-State.
                      Mr.Karansingh Rajput, Advocate appointed               by     Court      for
                      respondent No.2.

                                                          ****
                                             CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &
         Digitally
         signed by                                      N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.
         SHRADDHA
SHRADDHA KAMLESH
KAMLESH TALEKAR
                                             Reserved for Judgment on : 17th July 2021.
TALEKAR
                                             Judgment Pronounced on : 12th August 2021.
         Date:
         2021.08.13
         10:36:04
         +0530


                      JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

1. The legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 5 th

September 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Sangli in Criminal Bail Application No.1121 of 2019 preferred by

the appellant-accused for enlarging her on bail in connection with

Shraddha Talekar PS 2/11 cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

C.R. No.359/2019 registered with Miraj Rural Police Station for the

offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324, and 317 read

with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('the Penal Code')

and section 3(2)(5-A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('SCST Act') is assailed in

this appeal.

2. The background facts leading to this appeal can be stated in

brief as under :-

(a) Rupali (hereinafter referred to as 'the

deceased'), the daughter of Akkatai, the frst

informant, was a divorcee. Priyal was born to her

by her quondam husband. After divorce, the

deceased and Priyal came to reside with the frst

informant at Soni, Taluka Miraj.

(b) Tanaji (accused no.1), the husband of Sou.

Pramila (accused No.3), the appellant, allegedly

developed extramarital relations with the deceased.

A daughter namely, Angel was born to the deceased

by Tanaji (accused No.1). The deceased insisted

Tanaji (accused No.1) to marry her, as promised,

and look-after her, Priyal and Angel. Tanaji started

Shraddha Talekar PS 3/11 cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

to avoid the deceased. Eventually, Tanaji refused to

solemnize the marriage with the deceased on the

count that she belonged scheduled caste and even

disowned the paternity of Angel.

(c) On 17th September 2019, the deceased went

to the house of the accused accompanied by Priyal

and Angel. Tanaji (accused No.1) tried to push the

deceased and her daughters out of their house. As

the deceased refused to leave the house of the

accused, they abused the deceased. Tanaji

(accused No.1) and Prashant (accused No.2) started

to assault the deceased. Tanaji (accused No.1) gave

a blow by means of a partly burnt frewood on the

head of the deceased. When Priyal went to the

rescue of the deceased, the accused assaulted

Priyal as well by means of the frewood. The

accused also assaulted Angel. The deceased and

her daughters sustained bleeding injuries. They

were shifted to hospital and eventually the

deceased succumbed to the injuries.

Shraddha Talekar PS
 4/11                                                        cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc


                (d)    After    charge-sheet    came   to   be    lodged,

accused No.3 preferred second application for bail,

i.e., Criminal Bail Application No.1121 of 2019. By

the impugned order, the learned Special Judge was

persuaded to reject the application holding that

there was material to indicate that all the accused,

including the appellant, had indiscriminately

assaulted all the three victims resulting in death of

the deceased and hospitalization of the victim girls

for about a month.

(e) Being aggrieved, the accused no.3 Pramila

is in appeal.

3. Admit. Taken up for fnal disposal.

4. We have heard Mr.Kedar Patil, the learned counsel for the

appellant, Mr. S.R. Shinde, the learned APP for the State and Mr.

Karansingh Rajput, the learned counsel appointed by the Court to

espouse the cause of the respondent No.2-frst informant. With the

assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have perused

the material on record including the report under section 173 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its accompaniments.

Shraddha Talekar PS
 5/11                                                cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

5. Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that the learned Special Judge committed a manifest error in

attributing the role of indiscriminate assault to accused No.3-

Pramila. Such a fnding which vitiated the consideration, according

to Mr. Patil, is not at all borne out by the record. Taking the Court

through the statements of witnesses, especially the statement of

Priyal, the injured victim, recorded in question-answer form, Mr.

Patil, strenuously urged that no role of assault of whatsoever

nature has been attributed to accused No.3. In the circumstances,

the learned Special Judge could not have refused to exercise the

discretion in favour of accused No.3.

6. Mr. Shinde, the learned APP, on the other hand, supported

the impugned order. It was urged that the entire occurrence is

required to be taken into account as a whole. A hapless lady and

her minor children were mercilessly beaten up. A three year infant

was also not spared. As the accused shared the common intention

to commit the murder, the learned Special Judge was within her

rights in rejecting the bail application, submitted Mr. Shinde.

7. Mr.Rajput, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 also took

the Court through the statements of witnesses, especially that of

Priyal, and sought to controvert that the accused No.3 played no

Shraddha Talekar PS 6/11 cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

part in the incident. Mr. Rajput would further urge that since this

court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction, in the absence of any

glaring infrmity in the impugned order, this Court may not be

justifed in delving into the aspect of grant of bail as a court of frst

instance would do.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival

submissions. From the perusal of the report under section 173 of

the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its accompaniments, it

becomes evidently clear the tenor of prosecution case is that, on

the day of occurrence, the deceased and the victim girls went to the

house of the accused. They entered the house of the accused to the

consternation of the accused. An altercation ensued. The deceased

demanded accused No.1 Tanaji to solemnize marriage, as promised,

and bear the expenses of livelihood of the deceased and her

daughters, including their education. The accused asked the

deceased to leave their home. Upon her refusal, the accused

allegedly abused and assaulted the deceased. It is imperative to

note that the incident allegedly occurred within the precincts of the

house of the accused No.1-Tanaji. The deceased and the victim girls

were found lying in injured condition in the said house, before they

were shifted to Civil Hospital, Miraj.

Shraddha Talekar PS
 7/11                                               cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

9. In this context, the statement of Priyal, the injured victim

assumes critical signifcance. The rest of the witnesses have

deposed to the fact that they heard the commotion emanating from

the house of the accused, and the deceased and the victim girls

were thereafter found thereat in injured condition. The statement

of Priyal reveals that the accused, including accused No.3-Pramila,

started to abuse the deceased when she refused to move out of the

house of accused Tanaji. Initially, accused Tanaji and accused

No.2-Prashant started to beat the deceased. Accused No.1 Tanaji

took up a partly burnt frewood and gave a forceful blow on the

head of the deceased. At that time, accused No.2 Prashant had

caught hold the deceased. When Priyal went to rescue, accused

No.1-Tanaji gave a blow on her head by means of the frewood. Her

sister Angel was crying. At that moment, according to Priyal,

accused No.3-Pramila pushed Angel, who fell on the ground.

Thereafter, accused No.2-Prashant snatched the frewood from

accused No.1-Tanaji took the frewood and gave a blow on the head

of Angel.

10. The aforesaid narration of the occurrence indicates that the

assault was principally mounted by accused No.1-Tanaji and

accused No.2-Prashant. Initially, only accused No.1-Tanaji was

Shraddha Talekar PS 8/11 cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

armed with partly burnt frewood. The role attributed to accused

No.3-Pramila is that of hurdling abuses, when the deceased

refused to move out of their house, and, subsequently, pushing

Angel, after the accused No.1 Tanaji and accused No.2-Prashant

assaulted the deceased and Priyal. Undoubtedly, the presence of

accused No.3 Pramila at the scene of occurrence cannot be

disputed. Nor can the prosecution version that the accused No.3

Pramila abused the deceased be viewed with suspicion.

11. The question which, at this stage, wrenches to the fore is the

degree of gravity of accusation against accused No.3-Pramila. At

the highest, the role attributed to accused No.3 Pramila is that of

pushing Angel, who started crying noticing the assault upon her

mother and sister. The role attributed to accused No.3-Pramila is,

thus, of relatively lesser degree. It is not the case that the accused

No.3-Pramila was armed. Nor is it alleged that accused No.3

Pramila unleashed assault, apart from pushing Angel.

12. The submission on behalf of the prosecution that the accused

No.3-Pramila has also shared with the assailants the common

intention to commit the murder of the deceased and attempt to

commit the murder of the victim girls, can be legitimately

appreciated at the conclusion of the trial. At this juncture, from

Shraddha Talekar PS 9/11 cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

the stated participation of Pramila in the occurrence, when her

presence at the place of occurrence was the most natural, drawing

of an inference of prior meeting of minds is rather contestable. To

sum up, in the backdrop of the role attributed to accused No.3-

Pramila, in our view, a prima-facie case for grant of bail is made

out qua the accused No.3-Pramila. The fnding recorded by the

learned Special Judge that the accused No.3 also participated in

indiscriminate assault does not seem to be borne out by the

record. The exercise of discretion by the learned Special Judge thus

needs to be corrected.

13. The appellant has been in custody since 18 th July 2019. The

appellant is a woman. Investigation is complete for all intent and

purpose. Apprehension on the part of the prosecution as regards

tampering with evidence and feeing away from justice can be taken

care of by imposing appropriate conditions.

14. For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded to interfere with

the impugned order and allow the appeal.

15. Hence, the following order :

ORDER

(a) The appeal stands allowed.

(b) The impugned order, dated 24th November

Shraddha Talekar PS 10/11 cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,

Sangli, stands quashed and set aside.

(c) The accused No.3, Sou. Pramila Tanaji Jadhav

be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the

sum of Rs.25,000/- and one or two sureties in the

like amount to the satisfaction of the learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli.

(d) The accused shall not contact the frst

informant-Akkatai, Priyal and Angel.

(e) The accused shall not tamper with

prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement

to any of the prosecution witnesses.

(f) The accused shall regularly attend the

proceeding arising out of C.R. No.359/2019 before the

concerned Court.

(g) The accused shall furnish the details of the

address where she would reside, after release on bail,

and intimate the change in address, as and when it

occurs in future.

(h) The accused shall fle an undertaking in the

Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

Shraddha Talekar PS 11/11 cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

Sangli to the effect that she will strictly abide by the

aforesaid conditions (d) to (g), within a period of two

weeks from the date of her release.

The observations made hereinabove are prima-facie in nature

and confned to the adjudication of present appeal.

We place on record our appreciation for the able assistance

rendered by Mr. Karansingh Rajput, the learned counsel appointed

for respondent No.2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Service

Committee, Bombay shall pay the fees quantifed at Rs.10,000/- to

Mr.Rajput, within a period of two weeks from the date of the

communication of this judgment.

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this

judgment.

[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ]                                 [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]




Shraddha Talekar PS