Bombay High Court
Girish Rajgopal Sarda vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 20 August, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:18729
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 270 OF 2004
1. Vishnudas Ganeshlal Sarda
2. Sou. Kondabai Vishnudas Sarda
3. Sou. Shobha Balaprasad Baheti
VERSUS
State Of Maharashtra & Anr
WITH
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2499 OF 2022
IN APPEAL/270/2004
Girish Rajgopal Sarda
VERSUS
The State Of Maharashtra And Others
***
• Mr. S. S. Bora h/f Mr. R. R. Chandak , Advocate for
the Appellant
• Mr. S. A. Nagarsoge, Advocate for Applicant
• Mrs. Chaitali Choudhari Kutti, APP for the
Respondent/State
***
CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT, J
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2024
PER COURT :
1. Heard parties.
2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir
in Sessions Case No. 146/2001 convicting the present
Appellants for an offence punishable under Section 498-
Umesh PAGE 1 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and
awarded sentence to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
two years and to pay fine of Rs. 25,000/- each and in
default of payment of fine to suffer further RI for six
months. An amount of Rs.50,000/- out of fine amount is
directed to be given to the victim Padma - PW-4.
Appellants are acquitted of the charges under Sections
306, 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the
pendency of the Appeal, Appellant No. 2 i.e., mother-
in-law of Complainant/Padma died on 18.01.2024. Fine
amount is already deposited in this Court and by order
of this Court, the same is directed to be kept in a
fixed deposit.
3. Facts, in short, giving rise to present Appeal
are as below:
Padma - PW-4 lodged a report with Police
Station, Udgir on 30.03.2001. It is stated that she
married with one late Rajgopal i.e. son of present
Appellant No. 1 and brother of Appellant No. 3 in the
year 1994. Late Rajgopal was running a shop of
agriculture implements. A couple stayed in a joint
Umesh PAGE 2 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
family. After marriage, there was ill-treatment and
harassment given to her. There was also a demand of
amount. In-laws used to pressurize her to sign on blank
stamp paper. On 2-3 occasions they even tried to pour
kerosene and set her on fire. They also used to beat
and assault her. One of the sisters-in-law from Udgir
present Appellant No. 3 also used to demand Rs. 2 lacs.
On 03.03.2001 she was called in the backside of the
shop in a garage. Their Appellants and deceased
Appellant No. 2 put a pressure upon her to sign blank
stamp papers. She signed on a bond paper of Rs. 100. On
that Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 caught-hold the complainant
and made her to lie on the ground. Appellant No. 1
administered poison. Deceased husband came there and
asked as to what is going on. On that, Appellants
forced him also to consume poison. Thereafter, she felt
unconscious. She regained consciousness on 26.03.2001
in hospital. In the said incident, husband Rajgopal
died. On her complaint, offence came to be registered
for the offence punishable under Sections 306, 307,
498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
All the accused persons came to be convicted for
Umesh PAGE 3 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
offence under Section 498-A of IPC and acquitted of
other charges. Hence, this Appeal.
4. Shri. Bora, learned Advocate for Appellants,
submits that taking the evidence as it is no
ingredients of offence under Section 498-A of IPC are
made out and there is no supporting evidence led before
the Court. Evidence of independent witnesses shows that
the couple was residing separately from joint family.
The evidence of PW 2 and 3 would only shows that there
were some quarrels in the family. However, there is no
exact incident stated in the evidence of any of the
witness. PW - 4 is the informant herself who is
declared hostile and so is the case with PW 5 and 6
i.e., father and mother of the informant. Investigating
officer has only supported the case of the prosecution.
He thus submits that the trial Court has convicted the
Appellants only on the basis of some letters allegedly
written and sent by the informant to her parents. He
submits that the said letters could not have been read
in evidence as the contents of those letters are not
proved. Those letters are collected during the course
Umesh PAGE 4 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
of evidence. Unless contents of those letters are
proved by author of the letter, no such letters could
hae been exhibited and read in evidence. He thus
submits that judgment and order deserves to be quashed
and set aside.
5. Smt. Kutti, learned APP, vehemently opposes
the Appeal. She states that PW 2 has clearly stated in
her evidence that their used to be quarrel between
deceased Appellant No. 2 and informant. She was even
called by informant and deceased Appellant No. 2 at
home because of alleged quarrels. She submits that PW 3
who is independent witness also stated in his evidence
that there were quarrels. He deposed that relationship
between parties were not cordial. He further states
that he came to know on 03.03.2001 that deceased
Rajgopal and informant consumed poison and were
admitted in hospital.
6. Shri. Nagarsoge, learned Advocate, has filed
application to assist APP and opposes Appeal. He has
filed application through son of informant and deceased
Rajgopal.
Umesh PAGE 5 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
7. With the help of the parties, this Court has
gone through the record and proceedings and also the
evidence.
8. PW 1 is the medical practitioner who stated
that the informant was brought to his hospital on
03.03.2001 in unconscious state by Appellant No. 1 with
history of consumption of Organo phosphorous poisoning.
Along with patient, there were two Doctors, namely, Dr.
Baheti and Dr. Lakhotiya from Udgir. As per said
history, patient was admitted to the Civil Hospital,
Udgir and at 10.00 am informant became unconscious. She
was on artificial respiration till 22.03.2001. On
23.03.2001 she regained consciousness. Though she was
advised discharge on 29.03.2001, she decided to take
discharge only on 02.04.2001. From his evidence, there
is nothing except that the informant was brought to
hospital when she was admitted.
9. So far as PW 2 and 3 is concerned, they are
independent witnesses. PW 2 happens to be active worker
of one Mahila Swarakshan Hakka Samiti, Udgir. From her
evidence what has come on record is only that there was
Umesh PAGE 6 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
quarrel between deceased Appellant No. 2 and the
informant. She had been to their house and settled
dispute between them. In cross-examination she has
admitted that before police she had only stated that
she convinced deceased Rajgopal and informant not to
quarrel. She did not state before police anything about
deceased Appellant No. 2.
10. PW 3 is a person who was tenant in the same
building in which Appellants were staying together as
tenant. What is stated is only that relations between
husband and wife were not cordial. However, he was not
aware as to the reason for such strained relationship.
Thus, evidence of PW 2 and 3 is of no help to the
prosecution so far as allegation under Section 498-A is
concerned.
11. As already discussed, PW 4, 5 and 6 are
declared hostile. They have clearly stated that
material portion in their statements before police was
not as per their version and claimed ignorance as to
how such statements are appearing in their statement
before police.
Umesh PAGE 7 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
12. So far as PW 7 i.e., Investigating Officer is
concerned, though he has supported the case of
prosecution, however, he is not a witness to any
incident. He has stated in his evidence that all the
sentences appearing in the statement of witnesses is as
per their say. However, evidence of this investigating
officer, in absence of concrete evidence from any of
the witness, is of no use to the prosecution.
13. Considering as to whether any offence is made
out under Section 498-A, this Court needs to consider
Section 498-A, which reads as under:
Section 498A - Husband or relative of
husband of a woman subjecting her to
cruelty
Whoever, being the husband or the relative
of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this
section, "cruelty" means--
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a
nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health whether
Umesh PAGE 8 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
mental or physical of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her
or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any properly or
valuable security or is on account of
failure by her or any person related to her
to meet such demand.
14. Considering the ingredients of Section 498-A,
it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the
woman was subjected to cruelty of such nature to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or
physical) of the woman or where such harassment is
with a view to coercing her or any person related to
her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security etc. In this case, only in the FIR
there is allegation that sister-in-law with Appellant
No. 2 had made demand of Rs. 2 lacs. However, there are
no specific particulars given of such demand. Even
about cruelty or harassment, there are no specific
instance with details are quoted. In any case, when the
informant herself turned hospital, the contents of FIR
does not assume any importance. On the other hand, it
Umesh PAGE 9 of 10
20-APEAL-270-2004.odt
has come in the evidence of the informant herself that
for some time she was taking treatment for histeria.
She has also admitted in the cross-examination that she
and her husband used to reside separately.
15. Considering the entire evidence, this Court
find that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove
offence against present Appellants. Appeal, therefore,
deserves to be allowed. In the result, Appeal stands
allowed. Judgment and order dated 05.04.2004 passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Udgir in Sessions
Case No. 146/2001 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Appellants stand acquitted of offence under Section
498-A of IPC. Fine amount shall be refunded to the
Appellant No. 1 along with interest, if any, accrued
thereon. Their bail bonds stands cancelled.
16. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(KISHORE C. SANT, J.)
Umesh PAGE 10 of 10
