Bombay High Court
Ibrahimkhan Alikhan Pathan vs The State Of Mah on 1 October, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:23158
-1- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 608 OF 2005
Ibrahimkhan S/o. Alikhan Pathan,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Majalgaon, Tq. Majalgaon,
Dist. Beed. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
...
Mr. R. G. Hange, Advocate for Appellant.
Mrs. Chaitali Chaudhari - Kutti, APP for Respondent - State
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 09 SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 01 OCTOBER, 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. Appellant takes exception to the judgment and order
dated 29.07.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Majalgaon, Dist.Beed in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2004, thereby
rendering judgment of conviction for offence punishable under
section 498-A of IPC.
FACTS GIVING RISE TO SESSIONS TRIAL
2. Deceased Mehrunissa was married to appellant. In
spite of cohabitation and long married life, she did not conceive.
Dissatisfied by the same, appellant accused under influence of
liquor used to pick up quarrel and expressed his desire to perform
-2- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
second marriage. He even suspected her fidelity. He insisted her to
mutate immovable property in his name. Mehrunissa intimated
about it to her family members and relatives. Getting fed up of ill
treatment, finally on 19.12.2001, she immolated herself and was
taken to the hospital, where she given dying declarations, which
was made basis of registration of crime.
Investigation machinery swung into action and
commenced investigation. Unfortunately, Mehrunissa succumbed
to 93% burns on 21.12.2001. Offence under section 302 IPC was
added to earlier offence of 498-A IPC and after investigation
appellant was charge-sheeted and ultimately tried before
Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon, Dist. Beed, who recorded
evidence of in all 15 witnesses and on appreciating oral and
documentary evidence, rendered judgment on 29.07.2005
accepting case of prosecution, but only to the extent of charge
under section 498-A IPC and acquitted him from charge under
section 302 IPC.
3. Against above judgment, instant appeal has been
preferred on various grounds raised in appeal memo.
-3- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
STATUS AND ROLE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
4. The prosecution has examined following 15 witnesses
in support of its case. Their role and status is as under :
PW1 Ganesh is neighbour of accused and deceased.
PW2 Parvatibai is also a neighbour and an acquaintance of
both deceased and appellant.
PW3 Dr. Dattatraya Pargaonkar, Medical Officer, who treated
PW4 Jagannath and issued certificate Exh.20.
PW4 Jagannath is the landlord of accused and deceased.
PW5 Dr. Shriram Chavan, Autopsy Surgeon, who drew post
mortem and issued opinion about cause of death.
PW6 Dnyaneshwar is pancha to spot panchanama Exh.28.
PW7 Mohammad is the brother of deceased.
PW8 Ganpat Yedke, Naib Tahsildar, who recorded dying
declaration Exh.32.
PW9 A.S.I. Kalyankar, who recorded dying declaration
Exh.34.
PW10 PHC Nanekar, who recorded dying declaration Exh.36.
PW11 Dr. Kailas Paithankar, who gave certificate of fitness to
give dying declaration.
PW12 Dr. Kailas Dudhal, Civil Surgeon, who examined
deceased in hospital.
-4- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
PW13 Mohd. Muntojoddin is brother-in-law of deceased.
PW14 Manisha is a staff nurse posted at Civil Hospital, Beed.
PW15 P.S.I. Nakhate, Investigating Officer, who carried out
investigation and charge-sheeted accused.
DEFENCE EVIDENCE
5. DW1 Dr. Vinod Ostwal claims that, he was attached
District Hospital, Beed as Medical Officer. On 19.12.2001, patient
by name Mehrunissa was referred by Rural Hospital, Majalgaon for
treatment of burns and was admitted in the hospital at Beed at
about 10:00 p.m. He clinically examined her and found her to be
conscious condition and oriented and cooperative. Initially, on
asking patient Mehrunissa stated the history of accidental burns.
He noted down all these facts on the admission case paper and then
admitted her. He identified case papers at Exh.62.
6. On appreciating above evidence, learned trial Judge
acquitted accused from charge of 302 IPC, but convicted him under
section 498-A IPC and sentenced him to suffer three years
imprisonment.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant : -
7. Challenging the impugned findings and judgment,
-5- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
learned counsel for appellant submits that, prosecution has
miserably failed to establish the charge under section 498-A IPC.
According to him, necessary ingredients of cruelty as
contemplated under law, are not available in the prosecution
evidence. He submitted that, general allegations are made that
there used to be frequent quarrels between husband and wife for
not bearing child. According to him, most of the witnesses
examined, are neighbours and some of them even does not know
the cause of quarrels. He further submitted that, there are also
allegations that, husband intended to perform second marriage as
Mehrunissa did no conceive and it is further allegation that
accused was seeking permission of deceased wife to perform
second marriage, but according to learned counsel, being a Muslim,
husband was permitted three marriages, and therefore, there is no
question of insisting for consent.
8. As regard to allegation of seeking transfer of property,
he submitted that, he himself has land in his name, and therefore,
there was no need or question to seek her signature to transfer the
land. Therefore, he submits that all allegations are without any
foundation and base. That, trial Judge has already acquitted him
from charge under section 302 IPC. That, there are multiple dying
declarations, but same are not consistent, reliable and voluntary.
-6- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
Taking this court through the impugned judgment,
learned counsel pointed out that, in paragraph no. 35, learned trial
Judge has recorded a finding that, there is confusion whether
death of Mehrunissa was accidental, suicidal or homicidal and
therefore according to him, with such finding, guilt for 498-A IPC
ought not to have been recorded. He further pointed out that, even
when it was not a case of prosecution that husband suspected
fidelity and beat her, finding to that extent has been written in
paragraph no. 45 of the judgment. On this count, he seeks reliance
on judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Girdhar Shankar
Tawade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2002 SC 2078 and Gananath
Pattnaik v. State of Orissa, 2002 (2) SCC 619.
For above reasons, he questions the findings and
conclusion reached at by learned trial Judge and prays to set aside
the same on the ground that there is complete improper
appreciation of evidence and failure to apply settled law.
On behalf of Respondent - State :-
9. Opposing the above submissions, learned APP would
point out that, here, there is overwhelming, clinching and
convincing evidence on behalf of prosecution in trial court.
Learned APP submitted that, as many as 15 witnesses are
-7- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
examined. She pointed out that, except brother-in-law rest all
witnesses are neighbours and were thus independent witnesses
and moreover, they were witnesses to the quarrels and ill
treatment. All neighbours consistently deposed to that extent. It is
pointed out that, there was cruelty on three counts i.e. firstly, not
bearing child; secondly, therefore intending to perform second
marriage and thirdly, seeking her signature for transfer of
immovable property in his name. Learned APP pointed out that, it
has come in the evidence of witnesses that under influence of
liquor, husband picked up quarrel and subjected her to both,
mental and physical cruelty. Therefore, according to her, it is
incorrect on the part of appellant to submit that, there is no
evidence on the point of section 498-A IPC. She would strenuously
submit that after the episode of burns, neighbors who shifted her to
the hospital, were all informed by deceased that she was set to fire
by husband. That, immediately prior to the episode, husband was
present in the house and he had indulged in quarrels. That,
neighbours, who are witnesses speak about appellant to be present,
but acted as mute spectator and did not douse the fire and
attempted to save her. Consequently, it is her submission that,
above evidence is correctly appreciated by learned trial Judge and
as such, according to her, there is no infirmity or error on the part
of trial Judge in returning guilt.
-8- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
ANALYSIS
10. There being charge for offence as well as conviction
recorded under section 498-A IPC, at the outset, its essential
requirements are reproduced as under :-
"(1) A woman was married;
(2) She was subjected to cruelty;
(3) Such cruelty consisted in -
(i) any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her
life, limb or health whether mental or physical;
(ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to
meet unlawful demand for property or valuable security or
on account of failure of such woman or any of her relations
to meet the lawful demand;
(iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her
husband or any relation of her husband."
11. Law on the point of 498A of IPC is dealt in plethora of
judgments.
As to what actually constitutes cruelty has been lucidly
succinctly and time and again dealt in numerous cases like
Giridhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC
177, Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 7 SCC 108; In State of
Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582 and
Bhaskar Lal Sharma v. Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604, where the Hon'ble
Apex Court dealt upon scope, object and applicability of section
498-A.
-9- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
12. There being 15 witnesses, for proper comprehension,
appreciation and analysis, it would be desirable to categorize
witnesses as per their status.
First set - Immediate Neighbours,
Second set - Relatives
Third set -Authorities, who recorded dying declarations
Fourth Set - Medical Expert.
Fifth Set - Investigation Officer.
Sixth Set - Panch Witness.
FIRST SET - IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOURS
13. PW1 Ganesh testified that, his elder brother Jagannath
had tenants i.e. Ibrahim Pathan and they stayed 50 ft. away from
his house. He was acquainted with accused, who was serving as a
teacher. Witness claims to be familiar with deceased Mehrunissa,
who was wife of accused. That, they had no issues. There were
frequent quarrels on account of domestic reason, but he does not
know exact cause. He further deposed that, accused used to come
in inebriated condition, pick up quarrels and abused wife
Mehrunissa. Witness claims that, he always made endeavour to
give understanding to accused. He claims to have personally seen
-10- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
altercation between them on 16.12.2001. He interacted with
accused, who told him that, his wife did not allow him to perform
second marriage as he was intending to perform it. He deposed
that, he gave understanding accused. On 19.12.2001 at around
7:00 to 8:00 p.m. he heard shouts of Mehrunissa and so they
rushed to the house of accused and saw her in flames. At that time,
accused was standing at the distance of 5 ft. Witness himself, his
nephew Tukaram, brother Jagannath, one Bhalchandra, mother of
Jagannath namely Parvatibai extinguished the fire. While she was
taken in jeep to the hospital, she disclosed that husband set her on
fire. She breathed her last at civil hospital.
There is extensive cross examination and only relevant
cross is reproduced herein.
In paragraph no.8, there are questions about period
since there was acquaintance with accused and his family; distance
between his house and accused; whether he accompanied accused
or gave any advice to seek medical consultation for conception or
about any advice being given to Mehrunissa to file complaint. In
paragraph no. 9, he is unable to state details of agricultural land
standing in the name of Mehrunissa. In paragraph no.10, questions
are put regarding since when accused intended to perform second
marriage and whether Mehrunissa personally informed to him. He
-11- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
admitted about receiving invitation for Eid from accused. Then, he
is questioned about episode of burns dated 19.12.2001, in which
she answered that he only saw accused while present in the house.
He also volunteered that, there was can in the hand of accused, but
answered that, he made no attempts to snatch away the can. He
denied obtained handloan from accused.
Omission is brought in paragraph no.15 regarding
incident of 16.12.2001 regarding altercation going between
accused and deceased; about calling accused outside the house and
persuading him to wait till morning and assured that he would
obtain the signature by giving understanding to her. In paragraph
no.16, he answered that, he met police 5 to 6 days after the
incident and he had no occasion to disclose story narrated by
victim to anybody else. He deposed that, there were no other talks
during the journey to the hospital except disclosing by Mehrunissa
about burns by her husband. Again omission is brought in
paragraph no.17 about victim shouting "Bachav - Bachav".
PW2 Parvatibai claimed that, she was acquainted with
both, accused and deceased. They had no children. As deceased
could not conceive, there were frequent quarrels between them.
Accused insisted her to give him signature on paper for permission
to perform second marriage and also get immovable property
-12- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
transfer in his name. Regarding incident of burns, she stated that,
she heard shouts and so she rushed to the spot. Accused was also
present in the rear side portion of the house. Tukaram, Jagannath
and other doused the fire by pouring the water and Mehrunissa
being taken in jeep and before it in the house she disclosed that
husband set her on fire and she succumbed to burns and admit in
hospital.
This witness is cross-examined primarily on the
episode of burns. She admitted that, at Majalgaon hospital, brother
and his wife had arrived in hospital. She admitted that, there was
no conversation in the journey. She admitted that she did not give
advice to accused on account of conception of Mehrunissa. She
admitted cordial relations with there and admitted she made
inquiry about agriculture land and its location. But she admitted
that it was purchased by accused in the name of Mehrunissa. She
also admitted that accused did not ask Mehrunissa to mutate land
in his name during her presence. In cross, paragraph no. 8, she
admitted that brother of Mehrunissa, namely Badioddin, his wife
and even accused accompanied with Mehrunissa to Beed hospital.
Rest is all denial.
14. PW4 Jagannath in his evidence at Exh.21/C stated
that, accused resided in a room, abutting to his cattle shed since 15
-13- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
to 20 years. That, his marriage was performed with Mehrunissa
since prior to residing in his house and they had no children.
According to him, there were frequent quarrels between accused
and his wife, but he did not know its cause. In their fight, he and
his brother persuaded them not to fight. On 19.12.2001, after
hearing commotion, he went there and saw the neighbourers
thronged in front of house of accused and Tukaram going towards
house of accused with bucket of water. He too rushed and saw
Mehrunissa in flames. He and his brother Tukaram made
endeavour to douse fire and suffered burns to his finger. While he
was extinguishing fire, at that time, accused was standing in a
room at a distance of 4 to 5 feet. That time, Mehrunissa disclosed
that husband poured kerosene and set her on fire. She was taken
in jeep, he himself went to doctor for treatment of his burns.
While under cross, he answered that, accused was his
friend and that the couple was anxious on account of conception,
but he denied giving any advice for undergoing treatment. Then
stated that he did advice accused to go for medical check up at
Gujrat and he accordingly took him to Gujrat. He admitted that, he
reached 15 minutes after the burns and when fire was almost
doused. In paragraph no.14, he stated that, as per his knowledge
Mehrunissa had conceived during wedlock and he learnt about it
-14- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
from accused. That, there was conversation between Mehrunissa
and his brother Ganesh. Rest is all denial.
SECOND SET - RELATIVES
15. PW7 Mohammad Badiuddin, brother of deceased
deposed at Exh.29 that, after marriage with appellant, his sister
could not conceive, resulting into quarrels between spouses.
Accused appellant insisted for another marriage. Accused intended
to perform another marriage for children. Appellant accused also
asked his sister Mehrunissa to transfer agricultural land in his
name, which was mutated in her name. Accused appellant used to
beat Mehrunissa and she used to disclose all these facts whenever
she met. On 19.12.2001, while we was working as P.S.O. at
Majalgaon police station, he learnt about admission of his sister in
the hospital at Majalgaon. He immediately rushed there. He claims
that he asked cause of burns to his sister and she disclosed that in
the evening around 7:00 to 7:15 p.m., while she was at home,
appellant arrived at home, there was an altercation between them
and in the fight, accused husband poured kerosene and set her
ablaze.
In cross he admitted that, he does not know about visit
of his sister and her husband to Gujrat for medical treatment. He
answered that he made inquiry to his sister about the details of
second marriage of accused, but she did not inform specific details
-15- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
of purpose of marriage. Therefore, in spite of being brother, his
evidence in support of quarrel and fights or second marriage is also
omnibus in nature. He also admitted that land standing in the
name of his sister, was purchased by accused himself.
16. PW13 Mohd. Muntojoddin, brother-in-law of deceased
at Exh.44 stated that, victim Mehrunissa was the sister of his wife
and she was married to appellant in the year 1976. Victim did not
conceive out of wedlock. There were frequent quarrels between
them on that count. Husband used to beat and maltreat
Mehrunissa. Whenever she came to his house, she disclosed such
facts to him. According to him, the incident took place on
19.12.2001 and so he and his wife on receipt of message, rushed to
the hospital at Beed. He claims that, he asked her about burns and
at that time she disclosed that around 6:30 to 7:00 p.m., there was
bickering between the spouses and enraged husband Ibrahim
doused her by kerosene oil and set her on fire. She succumbed to
the burns on 21.12.2001.
Paragraph 7 of his cross shows that, there is omission
as regards to husband beating Mehrunissa on account of infertility.
THIRD SET - AUTHORITIES WHO RECORDED DYING DECLARATIONS
17. PW8 Ganpat, Naib Tahsildar at Exh.30/C testified that,
-16- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
on 20.12.2001, while he was attached Tahsil office as Naib
Tahsildar and was empowered to be also Special Executive
Magistrate. On 19.12.2001, an intimation was received from police
and requesting him to record statement of one burn patient
Mehrunissa, who admitted in civil hospital. Therefore, he visited
hospital, consulted doctor, who obtained certification on the paper
at around 00:45 a.m. on 20.12.2001. Patient gave statement. He
obtained her thumb impression. He identified said declaration to
be at Exh.32.
In cross, he is unable to assign reason as to why it is not
noted that contents of Exh.32 was read over and explained to
deceased.
18. Second witness, who recorded second dying
declaration is PW9 A.S.I. Kalyankar, who in his evidence at Exh.33
deposed that, while he was attached to police station Beed as head
constable, on 19.12.2001, he was assigned the duty at Government
Hospital Chowky, Beed. On receipt of information from Medical
Officer about admission of Mehrunissa due to burns, he went there,
approached doctor, who accompanied him and when doctor opined
that she was in condition to give statement, certificate to that
extent obtained. He reduced her statement and obtained her toe
impression on the declaration and signature of the concerned
-17- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
doctor. He identified the said dying declaration at Exh.34.
19. PW10 Nanekar, another Police Head Constable at
Exh.35 stated that, PSI Nakhate deputed him for recording the
statement of Mehrunissa and accordingly he went to the
Government Hospital at Beed, consulted doctor, obtained
certificate of fitness and recorded her statement. According to
him, in the statement, she reported that, she could not conceive
and also her husband was insisting for transfer of land in his
favour and on that count he poured kerosene and set her on fire.
He obtained her thumb impression and he identified said dying
declaration at Exh.36.
He admitted in cross that he did not visit police chowky
in the hospital to inquire whether any previous action had been
taken by Beed Police.
FOURTH SET - MEDICAL EXPERT
20. PW3 Dr. Dattatraya Pargaonkar, Medical Officer in his
evidence at Exh.19/C stated that, on 20.12.2001, he examined
Jagannath for his complaint of burn injury to his finger and he
issued certificate Exh.20.
While under cross he admitted that, he did not carry
-18- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
letter received to him from police dated 25.12.2001.
21. PW5 Dr. Shriram Chavan, autopsy surgeon, who
conducted post mortem on 21.12.2001 and attributed death due to
cardio respiratory failure due to 93% extensive burns. According
to him, burn injuries were ante-mortem in nature and sufficient to
cause death in ordinary course of nature.
He was not cross examined.
22. PW11 Dr. Kailas Paithankar at Exh.38 stated that, on
20.12.2001 while he was on duty, Executive Magistrate
approached him with a request to examine patient Mehrunissa and
therefore, he examined the patient and issued certificate Exh.36/1.
While under cross he answered that Mehrunissa was
admitted on 19.12.2001 at 10:15 p.m. That, on 20.12.2001 at
about 4:00 p.m. Dr. Dudhal i.e. PW12 examined her. He admitted
that, general condition of Mehrunissa was poor, when dying
declaration (Exh.36) was recorded.
23. PW12 Dr. Kailas Dudhal stated that, on 20.12.2001, he
was on duty as a Civil Surgeon. Around 9:00 a.m. patient by name
Mehrunissa was admitted in burn ward. He clinically examined
-19- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
her. She gave history of burns and disclosed that, husband poured
kerosene and set her on fire. Therefore, he sent requisition to the
police, who came and recorded statement on 20.12.2001. He
further deposed that Mehrunissa did not disclose him about the
person, who pressurized her to give earlier statement nor she
disclosed about the presence of any person at the time of recording
earlier dying declaration.
In cross he admitted that, on 20.12.2001 he examined
Mehrunissa at Beed, but denied that her statement was recorded at
Beed hospital yesterday. All suggestions were denied by him.
24. PW14 Manisha is the Nursing Staff and she stated that,
on 20.12.2001 around 9:30 to 10:30 a.m., doctor Dudhal attended
the patient, namely Mehrunissa in the burn ward and that time she
was accompanied doctor. According to her, patient disclosed that,
in the night, at the time of her admission in hospital, her husband
was with her, and therefore, due to his pressure, she gave incorrect
statement under pressure. That, she further added that, her
husband put her on fire by pouring kerosene. Doctor noted down
the history narrated by the patient Mehrunissa on the case papers
and she identified case papers at Exh.43.
-20- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
FIFTH SET - INVESTIGATION OFFICER.
25. PW15 P.S.I. Nakhate is the Investigating Officer.
SIXTH SET - PANCHA WITNESS.
26. PW6 Dnyaneshwar is the pancha to spot panchanama
Exh.28.
27. However, learned trial court has already acquitted
accused from offence punishable under section 302 IPC and
therefore, when said charge is not available, there is no necessity
to analyze and re-appreciate the dying declarations.
28. Consequently, only aspect which falls and remains for
consideration of this court is whether offence 498-A IPC has been
made out and thus proved beyond reasonable doubt.
ANALYSIS OF EVIDENCE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
29. PW1 Ganesh, PW2 Parvatibai and PW4 Jagannath, who
are neighbors and landlord respectively, deposed about quarrel
and altercation on the ground of second marriage, not conceiving
and on the ground of causing signature on the paper, but cross of
PW1 Ganesh shows that, he is not aware of medical treatment
given to wife by husband or he does not seem to be aware in whose
name agriculture land stood. Similar is the statement by PW2
-21- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
Parvitabai. Testimony of PW4 Jagannath is only on the point of
episode of burns. It needs to be noted that, marriage life of accused
and deceased was around almost two decades old. Taking the same
into consideration, though there was quarrel, this witness has over
heard about occurrence dated 16.12.2001. It is apparently a
quarrel between couple. He does not speak that deceased reported
them about any ill treatment or harassment at the hands of her
husband.
30. As regards to relatives i.e. PW7 Mohammad Badiuddin
and PW13 Mohd.. Muntojoddin are also only consistent about
quarrel between spouses on above background. Allegations of PW7
Mohd. Badiuddin are apparently general and vague. In cross, he
has admitted that, his sister did not give specific details of purpose
of second marriage. Likewise, as regards to PW13 Mohd.
Muntojoddin is concerned, there are material omissions about
husband beating on account of infertility.
Consequently, relatives evidence is also non specific
and vague.
31. As regards to dying declarations are concerned,which
are at Exhs.32, 34 and 36 respectively, on its study, it is emerging
that, in first two dying declarations, occurrence is attributed to
-22- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
immolation due to husband coming home and drunk and abusing.
Whereas in Exh.36, there are allegations of pouring kerosene by
husband. Therefore, dying declarations are not worthy of credence
as there is variance regarding reason of occurrence.
Admittedly, learned trial Judge has already acquitted
husband appellant from charge of 302 IPC. Apparently, no charge
was framed for 306 IPC in view of first two dying declarations.
32. Therefore, on careful re-appreciation of above
discussed evidence on the point of 498-A IPC, it is merely coming
on record that after getting drunk husband used to abuse, he used
to seek her consent for second marriage as she did not bear child
and seeking her signature on transfer of property papers. When
previously said instances took place, has not come on record. What
498-A IPC contemplates is consistent and continuous harassment
for cruelty. Married life of accused and deceased is 22 years old.
Therefore, mere occurrence of quarrel between couple on
16.12.2001 and episode of burns taking place on 19.12.2001,
cannot be made the basis of offence under section 498-A IPC.
33. Learned trial court has on one hand recorded that
prosecution failed to prove death of Mehrunissa to be suicidal,
accidental or homicidal, but has at the same time held charges of
-23- Cri.Appeal.608.2005
section 498-A IPC proved. Therefore, for above erroneous
approach, interference is called for. Hence, the following order :-
ORDER
I) The criminal appeal stands allowed.
II) The conviction awarded to appellant - Ibrahimkhan S/o.
Alikhan Pathan in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2004 by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Majalgaon on
29.07.2005 for the offence punishable under section
498-A of Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set
aside.
III) The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishable
under section 498-A of Indian Penal Code.
IV) The bail bonds of the appellant stands cancelled.
V) The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the
appellant after the statutory period.
VI) It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
in respect of disposal of muddemal.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
