Bombay High Court

The State Of Maharashtra vs Ravindra Vasant Damate And Ors on 15 January, 2021

Bench: K.R. Sriram

                                           1/10                         2 Appeal 280-2007.doc




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 280 OF 2007

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

1. Ravindra Vasant Damate
Age : 31 years, Occu.: Service

2. Ananda Vasant Damate
Age : 24 years, Occu.: Agriculture

3. Sou. Subhadra Vasant Damate
Age : 50 years, Occu.: Household

All R/o. Kavathe Ekand,
Tal. Tasgaon, District Sangli                          ....Respondents
                                                       (Orig. Accused Nos.1 to 3)
                                    ----
Ms. Anamika Malhotra, APP for State.
Mr. Kedar J. Patil for Respondents.
                                    ----

                                         CORAM : K.R.SHRIRAM, J.

DATED : 15th JANUARY, 2021.

ORAL JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 30 th

December, 2005 passed by the II Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli

acquitting the respondents (hereinafter referred as accused) of offence

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

subjecting her to cruelty) r/w 34 and 306 (Abetment of suicide.--If any person

commits suicide) of the Indian Penal Code.




Purti Parab




                                           2/10                          2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

2. It is the case of the prosecution that Suchita had got married to

Accused No.1 on 6th July, 2003. The marriage was conducted with consent

of parties and Suchita lived happily. As she was working at the time of

marriage as a temporary teacher in Mahankali Vidya Niketan, Kavathe-

Mahankal, even after marriage she continued to stay at the residence of her

parents in Kavathe-Mahankal and would visit the house of her husband

(matrimonial house) over Saturday, Sunday and on holidays. The

matrimonial house was in Kavathe-Ekand and the distance between the

parents house and the matrimonial house was about 30 to 40 kms. Suchita

got about Rs.700/- per month as salary. Suchita had done B.A. B.Ed. and

also first year (M.A in Psychology) student.

3. Accused No.1 who was husband of Suchita was also educated

and had done B.Sc. B.Ed. He was working in the Health Department, Zilla

Parishad, Sangli and drawing approximately Rs.7,000/- per month as salary.

Accused No.2 is brother of Accused No.1 and Accused No.3 is mother of

Accused Nos.1 and 2.

4. Sometime in August 2004, because it is prosecution's case that

six months before the incident, accused are alleged to have started

harassing Suchita by abusing her that she was unable to cook or do any

household work, that she should resign her job because Rs.700/- she was

earning was not enough to even cover her travel expenses from Kavathe-

Purti Parab




                                             3/10                        2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

Mahankal to Kavathe-Ekand. Accused are also alleged to have demanded a

sum of Rs.50,000/- to repay certain debts. The allegations noted are more

general and not specific.

5. About 1 and 1/2 months before the incident on 19 th February,

2005, i.e., prior to end of December 2004 or early January 2005 Suchita

went to reside in her matrimonial house. She did not go back to work or to

her parental house. Sometime around early February 2005, P.W. 1 -

Ramchandra Yashwant Kore who is father of Suchita went to her

matrimonial house at which time, weeping Suchita informed him about

harassment meted out by accused that accused told her that Rs.700/- salary

was not enough to meet her expenses, she is unable to cook, that she was

not given enough food and she was abused in filthy language. Suchita is

supposed to have told P.W. 1 about demand of Rs.50,000/- by accused and

unless that amount was paid Suchita will not be allowed to go back to her

parental house. According to prosecution, on two or three earlier occasions

also Suchita had informed P.W. 1 about harassment as noted above.

6. On 19th February, 2005 Suchita and her husband went to bed.

In the night Suchita committed suicide by hanging herself in the house by

tying a saree around her neck. When accused no.2 woke up early morning

and he was searching for pipe to fetch water, he realised Suchita had

committed suicide. Immediately everybody was informed and P.W. 1 and

Purti Parab

4/10 2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

other family members went to the matrimonial house of Suchita and found

Suchita hanging and dead. On 20th February, 2005 at 8.35 a.m. accused

no.2 informed police. Police recorded accidental death case and commenced

investigation. Police also came to prima facie conclusion that the death was

by hanging but nevertheless sent the body for postmortem. The postmortem

report also recorded a conclusion that death was due to hanging.

7. On 20th February, 2005 at 6.50 p.m. P.W. 1, father of Suchita,

lodged report at Tasgaon Police Station about harassment and that Suchita

committed suicide due to such harassment. Based on the report crime was

registered. Investigation commenced, accused arrested and charges were

framed. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. According to

accused, since accused no.3 was old and Suchita's salary of Rs.700/- was too

small, it was suggested to Suchita that she should resign her job and live in

the matrimonial house. Accordingly, Suchita also resigned from her job.

They have denied that they ever demanded any amount from Suchita or P.W.

1 or harassed Suchita in any manner.

8. To bring home the charge, prosecution has examined three

witness viz., Ramchandra Yashwant Kore, as P.W. 1 ; Balkrishna

Yashwant Kore, as P.W. 2 and Chandrakant Malhari Ombase,

Investigating Officer as P.W. 3. P.W. 1 - Ramchandra Kore and P.W. 2 -

Balkrishna             Kore      were    father      and      uncle      (father's brother)


Purti Parab




                                              5/10                          2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

respectively of Suchita. There is nothing to talk about in the evidence of

Investigating Officer.

9. After considering the evidence, the trial court has rightly

concluded that prosecution's case is devoid of any merits. I agree with the

trial court findings. This is because the evidence which is on record is not

enough to conclude that Suchita was subjected to cruelty at the hands of

accused or accused abetted Suchita to commit suicide. P.W. 1 states that

Suchita was being harassed, abused in filthy language, not given food,

taunted for not able to cook and told that her Rs.700/- salary was not

enough to even meet her expenses and that is what Suchita told him on two

or three occasions during six months period before incident. For the first 14

months after marriage, there was no problem. Suchita after marriage

continued to live in her parental house because she had a temporary job in

Mahankali Vidya Niketan as a teacher and was earning Rs.700/- against the

salary of Accused No.1 of Rs.7,000/-. Accused also allowed Suchita to stay

in the parental house though she was earning salary of only Rs.700/- as a

teacher on the hope that her job will be made permanent, which was not

happening. Suchita used to visit her matrimonial house over weekends or

on holidays which was at a distance of 30 to 40 kms from her parents house.

Therefore, accused informed her that it was not worth working for Rs.700/-

when the travel cost itself will consume most of her salary and if she gave

up job and move into matrimonial house, they could at least have a happy

Purti Parab

6/10 2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

married life. It was a practical suggestion in my opinion. How can this be

called harassment to fall under the definition of cruelty or can be said to be

something to abet Suchita to commit suicide. Perhaps Suchita did not want

to live in her matrimonial house, but for that, can the accused be blamed ?

10. The allegations of Suchita being abused in filthy language or

not being given food etc. are vague and general. I cannot accept these

allegations because more than a year after marriage Suchita was living in

her parental house and would only visit her matrimonial house over

weekends and holidays and during that time there are no allegations of any

harassment or abuse.

11. Even as regards the demand of Rs.50,000/- alleged by P.W. 1, it

is not believable. According to P.W. 1, Accused No.1 telephone to him and

demanded Rs.50,000/- and when P.W. 1 went to the matrimonial house of

Suchita, at that time also accused demanded Rs.50,000/-. We should keep

in mind Accused No.1 was working in Zilla Parishad and earning Rs.7,000/-

per month salary. Accused are also having income from agricultural land.

Till the death of Suchita there is no complaint of any nature regarding

demands by accused. So first time in the FIR this demand is mentioned. It

is important to note that there is no evidence to show accused were really in

debt or in need of money. The marriage was conducted on 06 th July, 2003

and until six months before the incident, i.e., until about August/September,

Purti Parab

7/10 2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

2004 there was no demand on behalf of accused. Therefore, one cannot

rule out possibility that this demand has been included only to implicate

accused. I would say this because to prove this demand, prosecution has led

evidence of P.W. 2. The evidence of P.W. 2 has spoiled P.W. 1's case as well.

P.W. 2 is brother of P.W. 1, uncle of Suchita, who had visited Suchita's

matrimonial house eight days after the marriage, i.e., sometime around 15 th

July, 2003. He says accused were harassing and ill treating and demanding

Rs.50,000/- from Suchita. But how does he know that. One cannot believe

P.W. 2 because he goes to the extent by saying, after marriage Suchita was

staying at matrimonial house and used to go to Mahankali Vidya Niketan

which is near her parental house everyday. This is contrary to prosecution's

case as well as evidence of P.W. 1.

12. In this circumstances, I cannot gather myself to conclude that

there is any perversity in the conclusions of the trial court.

13. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal V/s. State of U.P. 1 has formulated

the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an

appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgment read

as under:

72. The following principles emerge from the cases above:

1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under Section 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.

1 (2008) 10 SCC 450

Purti Parab

8/10 2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial court. The trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.

3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that trial court was wrong.

73. In light of the above, the High Court and other appellate courts should follow the well settled principles crystallized by number of judgments if it is going to overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal:

1. The appellate court may only overrule or otherwise disturb the trial court's acquittal if it has "very substantial and compelling reasons" for doing so. A number of instances arise in which the appellate court would have "very substantial and compelling reasons" to discard the trial court's decision. "Very substantial and compelling reasons" exist when:

i) The trial court's conclusion with regard to the facts is palpably wrong;

ii) The trial court's decision was based on an erroneous view of law;

iii) The trial court's judgment is likely to result in "grave miscarriage of justice";

iv) The entire approach of the trial court in dealing with the evidence was patently illegal;

v) The trial court's judgment was manifestly unjust and unreasonable;

vi) The trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the Ballistic expert, etc.

vii) This list is intended to be illustrative, not exhaustive.

2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial court.

3. If two reasonable views can be reached - one that leads to acquittal, the other to conviction - the High Courts/appellate courts must rule in favour of the accused.

14. The Apex Court in many other judgments including Murlidhar

Purti Parab

9/10 2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

& Ors. V/s. State of Karnataka 2 has held that unless the conclusions reached

by the trial court are found to be palpably wrong or based on erroneous

view of the law or if such conclusions are allowed to stand they are likely to

result in grave injustice Appellate Court should not interfere with the

conclusions of the Trial Court. Apex Court also held that merely because the

appellate court on re-appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence is

inclined to take a different view, interference with the judgment of acquittal

is not justified if the view taken by the trial court is a possible view.

We must also keep in mind that there is a presumption of

innocence in favour of respondent and such presumption is strengthened by

the order of acquittal passed in his favour by the Trial Court.

15. The Apex Court in Ramesh Babulal Doshi V/s. State of Gujarat3

has held that if the Appellate Court holds, for reasons to be recorded that

the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained because Appellate Court

finds the order to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably

unsustainable, Appellate Court can reappraise the evidence to arrive at its

own conclusions. In other words, if Appellate Court finds that there was

nothing wrong or manifestly erroneous with the order of the Trial Court, the

Appeal Court need not even re-appraise the evidence and arrive at its own

conclusions.



2   (2014) 5 SCC 730
3   1996 SCC (Cri) 972

Purti Parab




                                              10/10                        2 Appeal 280-2007.doc

16. I have perused the impugned judgment, considered the

evidence, also heard Ms. Malhotra, learned APP. 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.

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

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

accused under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that

every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is 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 Trial Court