Bombay High Court
Sujata Namdev Patil And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra on 27 August, 2024
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal
2024:BHC-AS:34624
Gokhale 1 of 6 4-ia-3371-24
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 3371 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 911 OF 2024
1. Sujata Namdev Patil,
2. Santosh Namdev Patil ..Applicants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
__________
Mr. Sandesh Patil i/b. Chintan Y. Shah for Applicants.
Mr. Swapnil V. Walve, APP for State/Respondent.
__________
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 27 AUGUST 2024
PC :
1. The Applicants were the original Accused Nos.1 and 3 in
Sessions Case No.366 of 2020 before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Pune. Both of them were convicted for commission of
offences punishable under sections 498A, 304B and 306 of the
I.P.C. and were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a
fine of Rs.25000/- each and in default to suffer S.I. for three
months.
Digitally
signed by
VINOD
VINOD BHASKAR
BHASKAR GOKHALE
GOKHALE Date:
2024.08.29
13:06:00
+0530
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 22:36:09 :::
2 of 6 4-ia-3371-24
2. The prosecution case is that, the Applicant No.2 Santosh
was husband of the deceased in this case, Megha. The Applicant
No.1 Sujata is Santosh's mother i.e. the mother in in law of the
deceased. Santosh got married with Megha on 12.06.2015.
Santosh was Homeopathy doctor and Megha was working in I.T.
industry. The allegations are that the applicants' family was clearly
told that, Megha was more interested in her job and she would not
know the household work. In spite of that, the applicant Santosh
and his family were ready for the marriage. The marriage took
place, as mentioned earlier, on 12.06.2015. Santosh and Megha
had a boy on 05.01.2017. There are allegations that the family
members of the applicants started harassing her; because
according to them, she was not doing household work properly.
There are allegations that the applicants demanded Rs.25 lakhs for
repairing their old flat and for constructing a house at their native
place. The deceased Megha got fed up and on 08.02.2020 jumped
from the 5th floor of the building of her matrimonial house and
committed suicide. Her father lodged the F.I.R. on 09.02.2020. The
applicants were arrested and subsequently released on bail. They
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 22:36:09 :::
3 of 6 4-ia-3371-24
faced the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Pune.
3. During the trial, the prosecution examined five witnesses
including the father and the brother of the deceased Megha. At the
conclusion of the trial, the applicants were convicted and
sentenced, as mentioned earlier.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the
evidence of the father itself shows that the applicants had never
demanded any dowry at the time of marriage. Even thereafter,
there were indications that the deceased was suffering from
hyperthyroidism bronchial asthama and she got fed up, and
because of her illness she could have committed suicide. He
further submitted that the evidence shows that Megha had given
name of her father as a nominee in her bank account. The
applicants had not interfered with her financial transactions. This
shows that the applicants were not greedy and had not harassed
Megha for any monetary gain or demand. He submitted that, both
the applicants were on bail during trial and there are no
allegations that they had misused that liberty.
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 22:36:09 :::
4 of 6 4-ia-3371-24
5. Learned APP opposed these submissions. He relied on
the evidence of father and brother of the deceased and PW-3
Bhalchandra Devmore who was known to the informant's family.
He submitted that, their evidence show that the prosecution has
proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
6. I have considered these submissions. The father of the
victim Megha was examined as PW-1. In his cross-examination, he
has admitted that, at the time of marriage, Megha was earning
around Rs.75000/-; whereas, the applicant Santosh was earning
only around Rs.25000/-. PW-1 and his family were aware that,
after marriage, the responsibility for looking after the expenses
was that of Megha. He also admitted that the accused had not
demanded any dowry at the time of marriage. Even after marriage,
the applicants had not demanded any money from PW-1. He
further admitted that, he himself had not given any money to the
accused. Metha had purchased a flat with her own earnings. At
that time, PW-1 and PW-2 had not helped her financially. Megha
had given PW-1's name as a nominee in her bank account. After
her death, the amount of more than Rs.9 lakhs was transferred in
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 22:36:09 :::
5 of 6 4-ia-3371-24
PW-1's account.
7. PW-2 was Megha's brother. His evidence is similar to that
of PW-1.
8. PW-3 Bhalchandra Devmore was PW-1's friend. But his
evidence is general in nature. He was told by Megha that the
accused' family was harassing her and were demanding money. He
has not given any further details.
9. PW-4 Shyam Wahile was an independent witness. He
had heard the sound when Megha had jumped from the 5 th floor of
the building. He has deposed that the applicant Santosh had come
there running as he was extremely concerned for the deceased
Megha. The other applicant Sujata was also crying. This shows
that both the applicants were concerned for Megha. The impugned
Judgment shows that the defence had produced some documents
regarding Megha's medical treatment and had tried to establish
that because of that medical condition, Megha might have
committed suicide.
10. All these points raised by the learned counsel for the
::: Uploaded on - 29/08/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 29/08/2024 22:36:09 :::
6 of 6 4-ia-3371-24
applicants deserve serious consideration. These points can be
decided at the stage of final hearing. But based on these points,
the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail during
pendency of their appeal. They were on bail during trial and they
had not misused that liberty. Therefore, I am inclined to grant bail
to the applicants.
11. Hence, the following order:
ORDER
i) During the pendency and final disposal of
Criminal Appeal No.911 of 2024, the Applicants
are directed to be released on bail on their
furnishing P. R. bonds in the sum of Rs.30000/-
each with one or two sureties each in the like
amount.
ii) The Application is disposed of.
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
