Bombay High Court
Sahebrao Eknath Pomnar vs The State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 14 March, 2023
Bench: Bharati Dangre
1/5 2 APEAL 909-22.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.909 of 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4655 OF 2022
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 9009 OF 2022
Sahebrao Eknath Pomnar .. Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Anr .. Respondents
Ms.Keral Mehta for the appellant.
Ms.A.A. Takalkar, APP for the State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE, J.
DATED : 14th MARCH 2023
P.C:-
1 At the outset, learned counsel for the applicant seek
permission to correct the date of judgment and order in prayer
clause (a). Permission granted. Necessary amendment to be
carried out forthwith.
IA No. 4615/2022.
2 By the present application, the applicant - original
accused no.2 who stand convicted by the learned Sessions Judge
for the offence punishable u/s.304-B IPC and pursuant thereto,
directed to undergo Seven years RI along with fine of Rs.9,000/-
and in default to undergo SI for three months, is seeking
suspension of sentence, pending the hearing of the Appeal, on
such terms and conditions and this Court deems fit.
Tilak
2/5 2 APEAL 909-22.doc
It is also his submission that the applicant was on bail
throughout the trial and since he has a good case on merits, the
sentence imposed on him deserve suspension.
3 Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned
APP for the State. With their able assistance, I have perused the
judgment of the Sessions Judge at 18/8/2022, where five accused
persons were tried for the offence punishable u/s.3 and 4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act and Section 304-B r/w Section 34 IPC,
when Manisha, the wife of accused no.1 and daughter-in-law of
accused no.2 committed suicide on 10/3/2015 within a period of
seven years from the date of the solemnization of marriage.
The five accused persons included the husband,
mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of the deceased,
alongwith the Applicant.
4 In order to substantiate his case, the prosecution
examined the complainant, the father of the deceased and the
mother as PW no.1 and PW 2 respectively, since the case of the
prosecution revolved around the demand of dowry and the death
that is caused on account of such a demand.
5 On appreciation of the evidence of PW 1 and 2 as
well as the other witnesses, who have been examined on behalf of
the prosecution, the learned Judge arrived at a conclusion that no
case is made out against accused nos.1, 3, 4 and 5, under Section 3
and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act as well as Section 304-B r/w
Tilak
3/5 2 APEAL 909-22.doc
Section 34. Even the present applicant was found to be not guilty
of committing an offence under section 3 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, but he was convicted for the offence punishable
u/s.4 of the Act and under Section 304 IPC and accordingly
sentenced.
6 Perusal of the judgment impugned, would divulge
that, the specific allegations, which are relied upon to convict the
present applicant is that he is the one who took the gold necklace
and gold ring of the victim, and he along with the husband of the
deceased was pressurizing her to bring Rs.45,000/- from her
maternal home, for getting the ornaments back, which were
pledged by him.
7 When the evidence on record, in form of deposition
of PW No.1, the father is examined, it is deposed by him that the
deceased had informed that after the marriage, when she returned
to her parental house, her necklace was taken away and so also, a
10 gm finger ring of accused no.1 was taken by father in law and
she was asked to bring money to release these ornaments.
PW No.1 then referred to the abusing and beating of
his daughter, as narrated by her, at the hands of all the accused
persons. The same set of evidence and allegations are to be found
in the testimony of PW 2, the mother of the deceased, who speak
in sync with PW 1, that the accused demanded Rs.45,000/- from
her to release the ornaments. She do not specifically attribute this
Tilak
4/5 2 APEAL 909-22.doc
act to accused no.2, but has levelled the allegations against all the
accused persons.
8 The Sessions Judge, however, picked up the accused
no.2/ the applicant to the exclusion of the other accused persons
and by referring to the provision under Section 304-B IPC, found
the applicant to be guilty of Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act
and Section 304-B of IPC.
Perusal of Section 304-B would reveal that the word
'Dowry' will have the same meaning as is assigned to, in the
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Section 2 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act define 'Dowry' as under :-
"In this Act, dowry means any property or valuable security
given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly
(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the
marriage; or
(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by
any other person, to either party to the marriage or to
any other person;
at or before [or any time after the marriage] [in connection
with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include]
dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim
Personal Law (Shariat) applies.
9 Perusal of the above definition would reveal that the
dowry is defined to mean any property or valuable security which
is given or agreed to be given directly or indirectly by one party to
the other party in the marriage, or to any other person and or
before or any time after the marriage, in connection with the
Tilak
5/5 2 APEAL 909-22.doc
marriage of the said parties.
10 In the wake of the aforesaid definition, if the findings
of the Sessions Court against the present applicant are perused, it
do not meet with the said requirement, as the prosecution case is,
certain ornaments belonging to deceased as well as her husband
were taken into custody by the present applicant, - Accused no.2,
who happened to be father-in-law and for release of the
ornaments, some money was demanded.
Needless to say that this included the ring of her
husband also.
11 This amount prima facie is not demanded in
connection with the marriage and therefore, the point involved,
whether there is demand of dowry, will have to be appreciated at
the time of hearing of the Appeal.
12 In the wake of the above, on considering the
impugned judgment, since the aforesaid point arise for
consideration in the Appeal, I deem it appropriate to suspend the
sentence imposed upon the appellant, vide judgment and order
dated 18/8/2022 in Sessions Case No.188/2014 at the hands of
the learned Sessions Judge, Nashik. The applicant deserve his
release on bail on furnishing P.R. bond to the extent of
Rs.25,000/- with one or two sureties of the like amount.
( SMT. BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Tilak
