Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Subhash Pandurang Gaikwad And Ors on 16 July, 2021
Bench: S.S. Jadhav, N. R. Borkar
j-cri-appeal-380-02.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 380 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
V/s.
1. Subhash Pandurang Gaikwad
2. Pandurang Bhau Gaikwad
3. Sou. Vatsala Pandurang Gaikwad
4. Mahadeo Pandurang Gaikwad ... Respondents
----------------
Mr. N.B. Patil, APP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Ateet Shirodkar i/b Mr. Ganesh Gole for Respondent Nos.1
to 4.
----------------
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 11.03.2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 16.07.2021.
JUDGMENT (PER N.R. BORKAR, J.)
1] This appeal at the instance of State takes an exception
to the judgment and order dated 12.12.2001 passed by the
learned 4th Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur in
Sessions Case No. 152 of 2000. By the impugned judgment
and order, the respondent Nos.1 to 4, who were accused
Nos.1 to 4 respectively before the trial court, have been
acquitted of the ofences punishable under sections 498-A,
304-B and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for
short 'IPC').
2] The deceased Sunita was the daughter of PW-4 Subhash
Hari Patil. The marriage of deceased Sunita was solemnized
Dinesh Sherla 1/6
j-cri-appeal-380-02.odt
with accused No.1 in the year 1999. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are
the parents of accused No.1. Accused No.4 is the brother of
accused No.1.
3] It is the case of the prosecution that after marriage, the
deceased Sunita was treated well for about 3 to 4 months.
The accused, thereafter, started ill-treating her on account of
demand of gold ornaments and motorcycle from her parents.
The deceased used to disclose to PW-4 about the ill-treatment
to her, whenever she happens to meet him. PW-4 was not
able to fulfll the demand of accused due to his poor fnancial
condition.
4] It is alleged that due to constant ill-treatment inficted
by the accused on account of demand of gold ornaments and
motorcycle, the deceased committed suicide on 20.4.2000 by
pouring kerosene on her person and setting herself on fre.
5] On the basis of report lodged by father of deceased, i.e.,
PW-4 Subhash Patil on 21.4.2000 with Kurundwad Police
Station, crime No.20 of 2000 was registered against the
accused persons for the ofence punishable under sections
498-A, 304-B and 306 read with 34 of the IPC. On completion
of investigation, the chargesheet was fled against the
accused for the said ofences.
6] The accused were charged and tried for the above said
ofences. As stated earlier, the trial court by the impugned
Dinesh Sherla 2/6
j-cri-appeal-380-02.odt
judgement and order acquitted the accused of all charges.
7] We have heard learned APP for the appellant/State and
learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
8] The trial court on the basis of evidence on record,
though acquitted the accused, however, has not accepted
their defence of accidental death of the deceased. The trial
court has held that the death of the deceased was suicidal.
No exception is taken to the said fnding of trial court on
behalf of the accused.
9] The only question is, therefore, whether the deceased
was subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry ?
10] It appears from the evidence of PW-4 Subhash Patil that
the deceased was educated upto 9th standard. The marriage
of the deceased was solemnized with the accused No.1 in the
year 1999. After marriage, upto the festival of Dusshera the
deceased was treated well by the accused. The accused
thereafter started ill-treating the deceased on account of
demand of gold ornaments and motorcycle. The accused were
not allowing the deceased to go out of the house. The
deceased disclosed to PW-4 about ill-treatment to her on
account of demand of gold ornaments and motorcycle when
he visited the house of accused after Diwali festival. PW-4 told
to the parents of the accused No.1 that he would not be able
to fulfll their demands due to his poor fnancial condition.
Dinesh Sherla 3/6
j-cri-appeal-380-02.odt
11] It further appears from the evidence of PW-4 that when
he brought the deceased to his house, at the time of
Gudipadwa, again she disclosed to him about the ill-treatment
to her on account of demand of gold ornaments and
motorcycle and the accused warned her that she should not
come back to their house unless their demand is met.
According to PW-4, after Gudipadwa, nobody came from the
side of the accused to take back the deceased to their house.
He, therefore, dropped the deceased at the house of accused.
At that time, only her mother-in-law was present at the house
and she did not talk with him. He thereafter went to the house
of Pandurang Bacharam Gaikwad, who was the Mediator in
the marriage, to convey him about the ill-treatment to the
deceased and he assured him that he would go to the house
of accused and would convince them to treat the deceased
well. According to PW-4, the deceased died unnatural death
due to the ill-treatment inficted by the accused on account of
demand of dowry.
12] Admittedly, the marriage of the deceased with the
accused No.1 was arranged marriage. It is not the case of
prosecution that at the time of marriage any demand in the
form of dowry was made by the accused. The deceased was
educated upto 9th standard, whereas it appears that the
accused No.1 was illiterate and was having speech problem.
PW-4 has admitted that before marriage of the deceased with
accused No.1, he did enquire about the fnancial position of
the accused and he found it to be sound. According to PW-4
Dinesh Sherla 4/6
j-cri-appeal-380-02.odt
himself, his fnancial condition was not sound and the accused
were aware about it. In such circumstances, the allegation of
demand appears to be doubtful.
13] According to PW-4, the deceased disclosed to him about
the alleged ill-treatment on account of demand of gold and
motorcycle for the frst time when he had gone to the house
of accused after Diwali festival. The said fact is, however,
missing in the report lodged by PW-4 at Exhibit-31. Similarly,
the fact that the accused were not allowing the deceased to
go out of the house is also missing in the report at Exhibit-31.
14] PW-4 has admitted in his evidence that the last rites of
the deceased were performed at the village of accused and all
the religious rituals were performed by the accused No.1. If
the accused would have really ill-treated the deceased as
alleged by PW-4, then he would not have allowed the accused
to perform her last rites.
15] According to PW-4, Pandurang Gaikwad was the
Mediator and he did disclose to him about the alleged ill-
treatment to the deceased by the accused. However, said
Pandurang Gaikwad has not been examined in the matter.
16] With regard to ill-treatment to the deceased, the
prosecution has examined one more witness, i.e., PW-5
Shahaji Patil. It appears from his evidence that the deceased
Sunita was his cousin sister. He had once gone to the house of
Dinesh Sherla 5/6
j-cri-appeal-380-02.odt
accused. At that time, the deceased disclosed to him about
the demand of gold ornaments and motorcycle by the
accused. He promised her that he would tell about it to her
father.
17] PW-5 has admitted in his cross-examination that he
might not have stated to the police that he would tell her
father about the ill-treatment to her. He has further admitted
that he has not stated before the police that on that day, he
stayed at the house of Sunita. There are lot of omissions in
the evidence of PW-5. It would not be, therefore, safe to rely
upon the evidence of PW-5.
18] There is no other witness on the point of alleged ill-
treatment to the deceased. Considering the overall facts and
circumstances of the case, no interference is called for in the
impugned judgment and order. In the result, the following
order is passed.
ORDER
Criminal Appeal stands dismissed.
(N.R. BORKAR, J.) (SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
Dinesh Sherla 6/6
