Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Kautik Murlidhar Suryavanshi And ... on 22 June, 2021
Bench: S.S. Jadhav, N. R. Borkar
j-cri-appeal-226-06.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
APPEAL NO. 226 OF 2006
The State of Maharashtra ... Appellant
(Through Avchit Murlidhar
Suryvanshi)
V/s.
1. Kautik Murlidhar Suryvanshi
2. Vimlabai Kautik Suryvanshi
3. Dattu Kautik Suryvanshi ... Respondents
----------------
Ms M.H. Mhatre, APP for the Appellant-State.
Mr. Anilkumar Patil a/w.Ms Sonal Rajput for the Respondents.
----------------
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV &
N.R. BORKAR, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 08.03.2021.
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.06.2021.
JUDGMENT (PER N.R. BORKAR, J.)
1] This appeal at the instance of State takes an exception
to the judgment and order dated 7.4.2005 passed by the
learned Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Malegaon in
Sessions Case No. 18 of 1998. By the impugned judgment and
order, the respondents, who were accused before the trial
court, have been acquitted of the ofences punishable under
section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short
'IPC').
2] PW-1 Avchit Mulidhar Suryvanshi had fled the complaint
case against the accused for the ofence punishable under
sections 302, 504, 506 read with 34 and section 120-B of the
IPC.
Dinesh Sherla 1/6
j-cri-appeal-226-06.odt
3] The deceased Suman was the daughter of PW-1.
Accused No.1 is the elder brother of PW-1. Accused Nos.2 and
3 are the wife and the son of accused No.1, respectively.
According to PW-1 there was dispute between him and
accused No.1 on account of sharing of water from common
well situated in their ancestral agricultural land. The accused
No.1 was not allowing PW-1 to take water from the said
common well. Regular Civil Suit No. 424 of 1994 was thus
fled by PW-1 in the court of Civil Judge, Junior Division,
Malegaon.
4] The incident took place on 19.9.1996. On the date of
incident, the daughters of PW-1 viz Suman and Anita were
working in the feld owned by PW-1. At about 2.00 p.m.
accused No.2 started quarreling with the daughters of PW-1. It
is alleged that during quarrel the accused Nos.1 to 3 caught
hold of Suman. Then they dragged her towards the well.
Suman tried to release herself. However, the accused
overpowered her. It is alleged that the accused then threw her
in the well.
5] The report in relation to the incident was lodged with
Taluka Police Station, Malegaon. However, no cognizance of it
was taken and instead accidental death was registered.
Complaint case was thus fled against the accused.
6] The accused were charged and tried for the ofence
under section 302 read with 34 of the IPC. As stated earlier,
Dinesh Sherla 2/6
j-cri-appeal-226-06.odt
the trial court by the impugned judgement and order
acquitted the accused of all charges.
7] We have heard the learned APP appearing for the
appellant/State and the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents/accused.
8] According to PW 1, on the day of incident, his daughter
Anita disclosed to him that while she and Suman were
working in the feld, the accused raised quarrel with them
and during quarrel, they caught hold of Suman and threw her
in the well.
9] According to PW-1, he and his son thus rushed to the
place of incident. The accused on seeing them started
abusing and pelting stones at them. He then went to the
house of Police Patil and narrated the incident to him. In the
evening, the police came to the place of incident. On the next
day, the body of his daughter Suman was taken out from the
well and the postmortem was conducted. The police avoided
to take the report against the accused. After one month, he
went to the police station for enquiry, but he was told that
the case is over and he should not come again. Therefore, he
fled the complaint case before the court.
10] PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the accused. He
has admitted in the cross-examination that the suit was
decided before the incident in-question and the court
dismissed his suit. On 19.9.1996 and 20.9.1996, the police did
Dinesh Sherla 3/6
j-cri-appeal-226-06.odt
not make enquiry with him about the incident. He has
admitted that till 25.10.1996, he did not fle complaint with
the police. He then volunteered that he did fle the complaint
with the police, but same was not taken.
11] PW-2 Anita Avchit Suryvanshi is an eye-witness to the
incident. She has stated in her evidence that at the relevant
time, she was 10 years old and Suman was 17 to 18 years
old. On the date of incident, at about 10.00 a.m., she and
Suman had gone to the land owned by them near Junapani
stream to collect Bajra crop. The accused were harvesting
Bajra crop in their adjoining land. She has stated that at about
2.00 p.m., the accused raised quarrel with them. PW-2 has
stated that accused No.2 said to Suman that she talks too
much and caught hold of her hand. Accused Nos.1 and 3 also
came there. Then they dragged Suman towards the well. They
then threw her in the well. She started running. At that time,
accused No.2 said that she also be caught and thrown in the
well. She then went to the land where her father and brother
were working. After going there, she became unconscious.
After regaining consciousness, she told the incident to her
father.
12] In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of the
accused, PW-2 has admitted that she did not till anything to
the police Patil. She admitted that the police did enquire with
her, in relation to the incident.
Dinesh Sherla 4/6
j-cri-appeal-226-06.odt
13] According to PW-3 Parashram K. Suryvanshi, on the day
of incident, he was grazing bullocks in his felds. At about
12.00 to 2.00 p.m., he heard shouts of Anita that the accused
pushed her sister in the well. Therefore, he went running
towards the well. The accused said to him that he had no
concerned with it and started pelting stones at him.
14] In the cross-examination, PW-3 has admitted that PW-1
is his relative. He has further admitted that he did not
disclose about the incident in - question to any body else.
15] PW-4 Dr. Bharat B. Wagh, who conducted postmortem
on the dead body of the deceased, has stated in his evidence
that in his opinion the cause of death was asphyxia due to
drowning.
16] It appears that after the alleged incident, the police did
enquire into it and found it to be accidental death. Admittedly,
the incident took place on 19.9.1996. PW-1 has admitted that
till 25.9.1996, he did not fle complaint with the police. He
then volunteered that he did fle the complaint with the
police, but the same was not taken. However, there is no
reference in the evidence as to on which date he lodged
report with the police. PW-1 has mentioned diferent reasons
in his complaint and his substantive evidence for not lodging
the report immediately.
Dinesh Sherla 5/6
j-cri-appeal-226-06.odt
17] PW-2 Anita has admitted that her statement was
recorded on the next day of cremation of the dead body of
her sister. However, she has not spelled out as to what she
has stated to the police. Afterthought attempt to implicate the
accused, therefore, cannot be ruled out. It would not be,
therefore, safe to rely upon the evidence of PW-2.
18] Admittedly, there was dispute between PW-1 and
accused No.1 on account of sharing of water from the alleged
common well. PW-1 has admitted that the suit fled by him
was dismissed prior to few days of incident. Considering these
facts and circumstances, the view taken by the trial court
cannot be said to be perverse. 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
