Bombay High Court
Ramnath Valiba Sanap vs The State Of Maharashtra on 5 March, 2024
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2024:BHC-AS:10635
Darshan Patil 912-REVN-464-07.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
REVISION APPLICATION NO. 464 OF 2007
RAMNATH VALIBA SANAP ..APPLICANT
VS.
1] THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
2] DEONATH MURLIDHAR GHUGE
3] MRS. SANGEETA SUNIL SANAP ..RESPONDENTS
------------
Adv. Sunita S. Warang a/w Adv. Satish R. Mishra for the
Applicant.
Adv. M.A. Choudhari for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. S.A. Karmakar, APP for the State.
------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.
DATE : MARCH 05, 2024
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for
the State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. By this revision, the applicant challenges the order
dated 27/06/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge, Greater Bombay, discharging respondent Nos. 2 and 3
herein under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 read with
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short).
3. The applicant is the father of the deceased Sangita.
Darshan Patil 912-REVN-464-07.docx
The applicant's daughter Sangita married Mangesh at Nashik
on 20/12/1996. It is alleged that the husband of the
deceased and her in-laws subjected her to harassment and
cruelty on the demand for dowry. Respondent No.2- Deonath
M. Ghuge is the father-in-law of the deceased Sangita's
brother. Respondent No.3- Sangeeta Sunil Sanap is the wife
of the brother of the deceased and daughter of respondent
No.2. It is alleged that because of the harassment of her in-
laws, Sangita attempted to commit suicide on 05/12/2004.
The dying declaration of the deceased Sangita was recorded
on 05/12/2004. Sangita succumbed to the injuries. Learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that this is not a fit case
for discharge as there are specific allegations against
respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the dying declaration of the
deceased and the matter should go for trial.
4. The statements of the witnesses in the charge-sheet do
not record any accusations against the present respondent
Nos. 2 and 3. The material against the present respondent
Nos. 2 and 3 is in the form of the dying declaration of the
deceased Sangita. A perusal of the dying declaration reveals
that due to some proceedings pending in the Civil Court on
Darshan Patil 912-REVN-464-07.docx
account of family dispute, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were
instigating Sangita's father-in-law and mother-in-law which
led to the harassment. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not
residing with the deceased at her matrimonial home. The
allegations against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are vague
and general in nature.
5. In my opinion, the allegations being vague are not
sufficient to attract the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 306
of the IPC against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Even if the
allegations are taken at their face value, except for the vague
statement that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were instigating the
in-laws of the deceased Sangita who harassed her on account
of the pending case involving their family, there are no
materials against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to satisfy the
ingredients of the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and
306 of the IPC.
6. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order
passed by the trial Court.
7. The application is dismissed.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 05/03/2024 18:57:26
