Bombay High Court
Malti Ramkrishna Mhatre vs State Of Maharashtra And Anr on 20 August, 2024
Author: Neela Gokhale
Bench: A. S. Gadkari, Neela Gokhale
2024:BHC-AS:33400-DB
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 460 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1148 OF 2022
Sou. Malti Ramkrishna Mhatre,
Aged : 56 years, Occ.:Housewife,
Residing at Kasarbhat, Post-Aajiwali,
Taluka-Pen, District-Raigad,
(At present in Aurangabad Jail). .....Applicant
(Orig. Accused No. 3)
Vs.
1. The State of Maharashtra
At the instance of New Panvel
Police Station vide their C. R.
No. 153 of 2015.
2. Hiraman Chahaya Tawari,
Age : 60 years, Residing at
Post-Rave, Taluka-Pen, District-Raigad. .....Respondents
Mr. Rahul Arote for the Applicant.
Mr. Anand S. Shalgaonkar, A.P.P. for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: A. S. GADKARI AND
DR. NEELA GOKHALE, JJ.
RESERVED ON: 30th JULY 2024.
PRONOUNCED ON: 20th AUGUST 2024.
ORDER (Per Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.) :
-
1) This is an Application for suspension of sentence and releasing
the Applicant on bail during the pendency of her Appeal.
1.1) Applicant is the original Accused No. 3/mother-in-law in
Sessions Case No. 198 of 2016. By a Judgment and Order dated 28 th
September 2022, the Additional Sessions Judge, Panvel-Raigad held both
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
the Appellants (mother-in-law and husband of the deceased) guilty for the
offense punishable under Sections 302, 304-B & 498-A read with 34 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.). The Applicant is sentenced to suffer
rigorous imprisonment for life for the offense punishable under Section 302
of the I.P.C. and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in default of payment
of fine, to suffer one year of simple imprisonment. She has also been
sentenced to suffer seven years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense
punishable under Section 304-B of the I.P.C. and simple imprisonment of
three years and fine of Rs. 5,000/- each for the offense punishable under
Section 498-A of the I.P.C. All the sentences are directed to run
concurrently.
2) This is a second application preferred by the Applicant seeking
suspension of her sentence and enlargement on bail, pending the hearing
and final disposal of the Appeal. By an Order dated 20 th March 2023, the
Applicant's first bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
file a fresh application in the event the Appeal is not heard within a period
of one year from the date of Order. The Appeal being still pending, the
Applicant has filed the present interim application for bail.
3) The prosecution case in brief is that, the Applicant and other
three co-accused were put to trial in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,
Panvel-Raigad. The Applicant was original Accused No. 3 being mother-in-
law of the deceased/victim-Mrs. Jyoti and the Appellant No. 1 (original
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
Accused No. 1), the husband of Jyoti. The Accused Nos. 2 & 4 were the
father-in-law and brother-in-law of Jyoti respectively.
3.1) The case of prosecution as narrated in the Judgment and Order
impugned herein is that, Jyoti and Accused No. 1 married on 2 nd May 2015.
The informant is Jyoti's father namely Hiraman. Jyoti was ill-treated by all
the accused. Within seven months of her marriage, the Accused Nos. 1 to 3
set her on fire, which caused her death. It is the defence of the accused
that, they were not present in the house and she died due to burns and
suffocation.
3.2) In the course of trial, the prosecution examined twelve
witnesses and the trial Court, upon evaluation of the oral as well as
documentary evidence in the final analysis held the prosecution to have
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against Accused Nos. 1 & 3 for
committing murder of the deceased.
4) Mr. Rahul Arote, learned counsel appears for the Applicant and
Mr. A. S. Shalgaonkar, learned A.P.P. represents the State.
4.1) Mr. Arote submitted that, the trial Court proceeded on the basis
of guilt against the Applicant and the co-accused right from the beginning
and thereafter sought to justify the evidence against them without assessing
the circumstances independently. He stated that, the F.I.R. itself is tainted
with malafide and the alleged demand of dowry is not even mentioned in
the F.I.R. The trial Court has ignored the law spelt out by the Apex Court in
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
such matters. He also contends that, the Applicant was given liberty to
once again approach for bail if her Appeal was not taken up within one
year. Mr. Arote submitted that, the Applicant has suffered incarceration for
about 9 years and hence she is entitled to be released on bail.
4.2) Mr. Shalgaonkar, learned A.P.P. opposed the application
submitting that, no error can be said to have been committed by the trial
Court. In any case she has not suffered incarceration for even 10 years as
per the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Soudan Singh Vs. State
of Uttar Pradesh1. He also submits that, the offense is serious in nature and
the accused including the Applicant have brutally taken the life of young
bride within seven months of the marriage and does not deserve leniency.
5) We have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties
and have gone through the material on record.
6) Perusal of evidence of Suresh Mhatre (PW-7) disclosed that, he
is a witness to the last seen theory propounded by the prosecution. He
testified that, on the fatal day and time he and his wife, while crossing from
the house of the accused, heard chaos. They noticed the Applicant herein
going away from the house. A crowd had gathered in front of the house
and the Accused No. 1-husband of Jyoti was standing in front of the house
wearing a bermuda pant. From the rear of the house, they noticed fumes
coming out of the room. That room was locked from outside, however one
1. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 697.
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
window was open. From this window they saw Jyoti in a burnt condition.
He says that, Jyoti's parents also came and also witnessed the scene of
incident. After opening the room, they found Jyoti dead. His testimony
was not rebutted in the cross-examination.
7) The PW-8 namely Sangeeta, a neighbour and witness also
testified that, on the date and time of incident, she and Asha Gawand heard
shouts from the house of accused. They also heard Jyoti crying to be saved.
She called Jyoti's father on somebody's phone and informed him about the
incident. When they opened the door, they found Jyoti in burnt condition
and dead. She thus corroborated the testimony of Suresh Mhatre, PW-7.
8) The evidence of Dr. Mahesh Bhadnge, the Medical Officer who
performed autopsy on Jyoti, also indicates that, the dead-body was burned
upto 89%. According to this witness, he noticed intact soot particles in the
trachea lumen. According to him this means that, the person was alive at
the time of being burnt. The cause of death was 'shock due to superficial to
deep burn injuries'. This statement indicates that, the young girl was burnt
alive. The doctor specifically denies noticing any symptoms of suffocation
thereby negating the defence of the accused that Jyoti died of suffocation.
9) The deposition of Investigating Officer reveals that, he found
that Jyoti's body was burnt and her hands and legs were restrained by ropes
and half burnt clothes were stuck to her body. He noticed a hearth on
which the body of Jyoti was lying. He also noticed a plastic can of
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
kerosene, two half burnt match-sticks, pieces of broken bangles and half
burnt clothes.
10) From the overall conspectus of the matter it is clear that, Jyoti
was burnt alive within seven months of her marriage raising the
presumption of Section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, against the
accused. There is a history of ill-treatment and cruelty to Jyoti. There is no
material which can remotely demonstrate a plausible belief that Jyoti died
due to suffocation as carbon monoxide gas accumulated in the room, as per
the defence of accused. This has been specifically negated by the Medical
Officer. The chemical analysis report also detected kerosene residues on
burnt clothes. Thus, all the oral as well as documentary evidence leaves
little doubt that, there is anything palpable or apparent on the face of
record based on which this Court can come to the conclusion that, the
conviction is not sustainable in law and that, the convict has a fair chance
of succeeding in her Appeal. It is difficult for us at this stage to find fault
with the Judgment and Order impugned in the Appeal.
11) The Supreme Court in its recent decision in the case of Shivani
Tyagi Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another2 has observed as under :
"9. ...We are of the opinion that factors like nature of the
offence held to have committed, the manner of their
commission, the gravity of the offence, and also the desirability
of releasing the convict on bail are to be considered objectively
2. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 842.
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
and such consideration should reflect in the consequential order
passed under Section 389, Cr.P.C. It is also relevant to state that
the mere factum of sufferance of incarceration for a particular
period, in a case where life imprisonment is imposed, cannot be
a reason for invocation of power under Section 389 Cr.P.C.
without referring to the relevant factors. We say so because there
cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that disposal of
appeals against conviction, (especially in cases where life
imprisonment is imposed for serious offences), within a short
span of time may not be possible in view of the number of
pending cases. In such circumstances if it is said that
disregarding the other relevant factors and parameters for the
exercise of power under Section 389, Cr. PC, likelihood of delay
and incarceration for a particular period can be taken as a
ground for suspension of sentence and to enlarge a convict on
bail, then, in almost every such case, favourable invocation of
said power would become inevitable. That certainly cannot be
the legislative intention as can be seen from the phraseology in
Section 389 Cr.P.C. Such an interpretation would also go against
public interest and social security. In such cases giving
preference over appeals where sentence is suspended, in the
matter of hearing or adopting such other methods making an
early hearing possible could be resorted. We shall not be
understood to have held that irrespective of inordinate delay in
consideration of appeal and long incarceration undergone the
power under the said provision cannot be invoked. In short, we
are of the view that each case has to be examined on its own
merits and based on the parameters, to find out whether the
sentence imposed on the appellant(s) concerned should be
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
suspended during the pendency of the appeal and the
appellant(s) should be released on bail."
12) The offense held to have been committed by the Applicant is
serious. From the evidence on record it appears that, the Applicant and her
son had deliberately and ruthlessly restrained the hands and legs of the
deceased to control her movements. Then they doused her with kerosene
and set her alight. Undoubtedly the manner of commission of this act is
brutal. The Applicant has suffered only about 9 years of incarceration
against her life sentence. The life of a young girl having a promising future
has been prematurely snuffed out by the accused. It is thus not desirable to
suspend the sentence of Applicant and enlarge her on bail in view of the
facts, circumstances, deposition of witnesses adduced as well as the
evidence appreciated by the trial Court.
13) From the observations of the Supreme Court in various
precedents including that of Shivani Tyagi (supra) it is clear that, while
undertaking the exercise to ascertain whether the Applicant has fair chance
of acquittal, what is to be looked into is something palpable. From the
strict perusal of the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court, we have
neither found anything which is very apparent or gross on the face of the
record, nor have we found any noticeable and perceivable error in the
findings of trial Court. For this reason, we are unable to accept the
contention of Mr. Arote that, it would be meaningless, improper and unjust
Gitalaxmi 1-ia-460-2024.doc
to keep the Applicant behind bars for a further period than that which has
already undergone till the disposal of her Appeal. We are thus not inclined
to suspend the sentence of the Applicant and grant her bail during the
pendency of the Appeal.
14) We may hasten to add that, regarding the merits of the Appeal
by the Applicant against her conviction, we shall not be understood to have
held or made any observation as it is a matter to be considered on its own
merits in the pending Appeal.
15) The Application is accordingly dismissed.
(DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.) (A. S. GADKARI, J.)
GITALAXMI KRISHNA
KRISHNA KOTAWADEKAR
KOTAWADEKAR Date:
2024.08.21
10:55:31 +0530
