Bombay High Court
Rajendrakumar Ramniwas Agarwal vs Ghanshyam Sawarmal Agarwal And ... on 27 September, 2022
Bench: Nitin W. Sambre
(30)-ALP-522-18.doc.
Digitally signed
by BALAJI
GOVINDRAO
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BALAJI PANCHAL
GOVINDRAO Date:
PANCHAL 2022.09.30
14:17:36
+0530
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.522 OF 2018
Rajendrakumar Ramniwas Agarwal ..Applicant
Versus
Anju Pawankumar Agarwal & Anr. ..Respondents
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.523 OF 2018
Rajendrakumar Ramniwas Agarwal ..Applicant
Versus
Ghanshyam Sawarmal Agarwal & Ors. ..Respondents
Mr. Karan Bhosale a/w Rohit Jadhav, Sharayu Kate & Anuja
Divadkar i/by NDB Law, for the Applicant in both Applications.
Mr. N. B. Patil, APP for the Respondent/State.
CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.
DATE : 27th SEPTEMBER, 2022
P.C.
1. Both these applications are under Section 378(4) of
CrPC by the complainant. The daughter of the applicant/PW-1,
Kiran @ Maya got married in 2002 with accused No.1/Ghanshyam.
She started residing jointly with Ghanshyam, his brother
Pawankumar and his wife Anju who are also co-accused. All these
persons Ghanshyam, Pawankumar and Anju are allegedly
responsible for the offence under Section 498A and 306 of IPC, as
the Kiran @ Maya committed suicide on 24th December, 2009.
BGP. 1 of 4
(30)-ALP-522-18.doc.
2. The Trial Court i.e. Adhoc. Assistant Sessions Judge,
Greater Bombay ordered acquittal of the respondents/accused on
26th August, 2011 which was confirmed in appeal being Appeal
No.113 of 2015 by the Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai vide
judgment dated 14th December, 2016. As such, this application.
3. Contentions of Mr. Karan Bhosale, counsel appearing for
the applicant are, both the Courts below have committed an error
while appreciating the evidence of PW-1 i.e. applicant herein.
According to him, the evidence of PW-1 is in corroboration with the
evidence of PW-3/Gokulchand Agarwal who was maternal uncle of
the deceased. He would further urge that the victim suffered six
ante-mortem injuries which were said to have been caused about 24
hours before the death of daughter of the applicant who has
committed suicide by hanging. So as to substantiate his claim, he
has invited attention of this Court to the testimony of PW-4/Dr.
Pravin Bagul/Medical Officer, so also the testimony of
PW-3/Gokulchand Agarwal and Rajendra Kumar Agarwal.
4. Mr. N. B. Patil, APP would support the case of the
applicant.
5. I have appreciated the submissions.
6. The fact remains that PW-1 while examining himself was
unable to explain as to why he has not stated about demand of
BGP. 2 of 4
(30)-ALP-522-18.doc.
dowry in the complaint lodged by him particularly when there were
allegations of cruelty and ill-treatment meted out to the deceased.
Rather it has come on record that younger daughter of the PW-1
was staying with the deceased from ten days prior to the incident,
as she has gone to said place for shopping for her marriage.
7. The fact remains that the Investigating Officer has not
recorded statement of younger daughter of PW-1 nor examined her.
Apart from above, it is informed that the deceased was blessed with
son who was aged about five years at the relevant time, even his
testimony is also not brought on record.
8. With assistance, I have also appreciated the
evidence of PW-3/Gokulchand who was maternal uncle of the
deceased. Upon appreciation of his evidence rightly so
observed by the Courts below, the offence alleged u/s 498A
cannot be inferred or/and established. The evidence of the
said witness is not in tune with the evidence of PW-1 i.e.
father of the deceased.
9. Rather both the Courts below were justified in
ordering acquittal as the ill-treatment if any suffered by the
deceased would have been narrated to her younger sister who
was staying with her since last 10 days before her death.
10. Even it is also not established that PW-1 father was
BGP. 3 of 4
(30)-ALP-522-18.doc.
not in good terms with the accused person over the issue of
demand of dowry particularly in the background of fact that
the younger sister of the deceased was staying with the
deceased since last 10 days for completing shopping for her
marriage.
11. As such, the view expressed by both the Court's
below are possible views. In the aforesaid background, both
the Courts below were justified in finding that necessary
ingredients of offence punishable under Section 306 and 498A
of IPC cannot be inferred against the non-applicants.
12. That being so, leave stands refused.
[NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.]
BGP. 4 of 4
