Bombay High Court
Sukhdeo Asaram Raut vs Jagannath Asaram Tayade And Ors on 9 October, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:24288
-1- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 337 of 2004
Sachin Jagannath Tayade,
Age : 23 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Sundernagar, Nageshwarwadi,
Aurangabad. ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
WITH
CRIMINAL REVISION NO. 284 OF 2004
Sukhdeo S/o. Asaram Raut,
Age : 50 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. CIDCO, N-9-2-39/3,
Shivajinagar,
Aurangabad. ... Applicant
(Orig. Complainant)
Versus
1. Jagannath S/o. Asaram Tayade,
Age : 57 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Sundernagar, Nageshwarwadi,
Aurangabad.
2. Sachin s/o. Jagannath Tayade,
Age : 24 years, Occu. : Service,
R/o. Sundernagar, Nageshwarwadi,
Aurangabad.
3. Shakuntala w/o. Jagannath Tayade,
Age : 49 years, Occu. : Household,
R/o. Sundernagar, Nageshwarwadi,
Aurangabad.
4. Sonali d/o. Jagannath Tayade,
Age : 22 years, Occu. : Education,
R/o. Sundernagar, Nageshwarwadi,
Aurangabad.
5. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondents
-2- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
...
Mr. N. S. Ghanekar, Advocate for Appellant in Cri.Appeal/334/2004
Mrs. Ashlesha Deshmukh, APP for Respondent - State.
Mr. Vinod Patil, Advocate for Applicant in Cri.Revision/284/2004
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 03 OCTOBER, 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 09 OCTOBER, 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. In instant appeal, there is challenge to the judgment
and order passed by IIIrd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Aurangabad in Sessions Case No.139 of 2003, dated 27.04.2004,
holding appellant husband guilty for offence punishable under
sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. In nutshell, prosecution version in trial court is that,
deceased Shubhangi was married to appellant Sachin on
05.05.2002. After marriage, she went to cohabit with husband and
in-laws, who resided jointly. Shubhangi was treated properly for a
period of 2 to 3 months after marriage, but thereafter, accused nos.
1 to 4 subjected her to cruelty on petty counts. Shubhangi reported
it to her father. She also reported about beating on account of
demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for arranging Government job. On
23.03.2003, she went missing and her dead body was found in well.
-3- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
After funeral, PW1 Sukhdeo father lodged report, resulting into
registration of crime and it being investigated by PW9 API Shinde.
Accused husband and in-laws were charge-sheeted for
above offences and tried by learned III Ad-hoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Aurangabad, who on appreciating the evidence acquitted
accused nos.1, 3 and 4, but convicted only husband.
Hence, the instant appeal.
SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT
3. PW1 Sukhdeo in evidence at Exh.19 stated about
marriage of deceased daughter with appellant on 05.05.2002. He
stated that after marriage, she went to reside with husband and in-
laws. She was properly treated for initial span of 2 to 3 months.
Thereafter, accused nos.1 to 4 subjected her to cruelty on account
of petty reasons. Whenever she came, she reported about it. He
gave her understanding to tolerate. After December 2002, accused
subjected her to cruelty by beating her and ask him to bring
Rs.1,00,000/- for getting Government service for appellant. After
December 2002, she had come four times and in every visits, she
told about demand of Rs.1,00,000/-. On 23.03.2003, information
was received that she was missing. After search her dead body
was found inside the well. After funeral, he lodged report.
-4- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
PW2 Raja brother-in-law of PW1 stated that, on
23.03.2003, he, complainant and brother of complainant
Namdeorao undertook search of Shubhangi and her dead body was
noticed in well. In paragraph no. 2 of examination-in-chief, he
stated that, after 3 to 4 months, Shubhangi told him that accused
subjected her cruelty on petty counts. During Sankrant of 2003,
she told him that her husband Sachin received call for the
interview for the post of Police Constable and for that accused were
demanding Rs.1,00,000/- for getting service.
PW3 Dr. Kotekar, autopsy surgeon, who conducted post
mortem and issued opinion that, cause of death was 'pulmonary
contusion with cerebropulmonary oedma with injury with scalp'.
PW4 Anil drew hand sketch map of spot Exh.43.
PW5 Sangita neighbour and childhood friend, deposed
that, after marriage, on 2 to 3 occasions, when Shubhangi came to
parents home, they both met. After 10 to 12 days of Sankrant of
2003, she told her that her husband had received recruitment call
for the post of Police Constable and in order to secure employment
as constable, accused nos.1 to 3 were asking to bring of
Rs.1,00,000/- from her parents. Thereafter, they did not meet.
-5- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
PW6 Archana sister stated that, in July 2002, when her
sister came along with her husband at Badnapur, that time, she
told her that for initial span of 1 or 2 months, immediately after
marriage she was treated properly, but thereafter accused nos.1 to
4 started taunting. In Diwali of 2002, she reported taunting and
subjecting her to cruelty on petty counts. During Sankrant of 2003,
Shubhangi told that accused Sachin was demanding Rs.1,00,000/-
for seeking job as Constable and he was asking her to bring it from
her parents. Similar information was given on 23.02.2003.
PW7 Vasant, Employment Officer, testified that, he
dispatched call letter to appellant for recruitment for the post of
Police Constable. However, on 15.01.2003, proposed recruitment
was cancelled and therefore fresh letter was issued subsequently to
remain present on police ground on 28.03.2003. He identified
letter at Exh.49.
PW8 Prashant identified sale deed of plot sold by
complainant.
PW9 API Shinde, Police Officer, who carried out
investigation and charge-sheeted accused.
4. Defence i.e. accused examined himself DW1 Sachin at
Exh.22 and deposed that, after marriage she came to cohabit at
-6- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
their house, where his parents and sister were occupying the house
comprising of five rooms. He and deceased were using two rooms
and rest were occupied by her parents and sister. There are two
separate residence for the three rooms and two rooms,
respectively. Substance of his evidence is that, Shubhangi was
short tempered. She was not willing to bear child and took pills and
this was opposed by him and he even restrained her and convinced
her. On 25.09.2002 also he convinced her to not to take pills to
prevent pregnancy and even spoke on phone with her father and
asked him to come to the house on 26.09.2003 at 10:30 am. He
also called his old maternal uncle and brother-in-law. On
26.09.2002 all persons came and tried to convince Shubhangi that
she should refrain from taking pills during pregnancy. He stated
that, he received call letter, but recruitment process was cancelled,
and thereafter he did not get any call letter. That, on 22.03.2003,
he and Shubhangi had proposed to visit Gynecologist for check up.
There was altercation at about 10:30 p.m.. On 22.03.2003, he left
the house to resume his duties at 'Mangalam Quaeels' at 11:00 p.m.
and after discharging duties around 7 a.m. of 23.03.2003, he
returned home and learnt from his father and brother-in-law that
Shubhangi was missing and therefore she was searched. Around
9:30 p.m., he and his father visited Kranti Chowk Police Station to
inform missing of Shubhangi and one Gaikwad noted missing
-7- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
report. That time, telephonic message was received about dead
body spotted in well and then they all went and found that corpse
of Shubhangi. After P.M., last rituals was conducted.
5. DW2 Ambadas, maternal uncle also deposed that,
Shubhangi used to take pills to prevent pregnancy. She was
convinced. On 26.09.2002 meeting was held at his residence to
refrain her from taking pills. On 23.03.2003, telephonic message
received that Shubhangi was missing and about accused visited to
lodge report and dead body of Shubhangi noticed in the well.
SUBMISSIONS
Learned counsel for Appellant :
6. Pointing to the above evidence, learned counsel would
submits that, apparently there is false implication. That, case has
not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. That, prosecution
evidence is weak and essential ingredients for attracting the
charges are not available. He submitted that, allegations are
general, vague and omnibus in nature alleging cruelty without
specifying, who inflicted cruelty and for what reasons. That, there
are allegations of quarrels on petty count without elaborating
reasons for quarrels. It is submitted that, cruelty as contemplated
under law to attract section 498-A IPC is not proved by
prosecution.
-8- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
7. As regards to offence of suicide is concerned, learned
counsel submitted that, there were mere differences between
husband and wife for retaining pregnancy. Deceased was not
willing to conceive and bear child and was regularly taking pills. In
spite of several attempts, she did not respond and continued to
take pills. On such count, there was quarrel and for no other
reason. He pointed out that, for such reason, if quarrels do take
place, they would not amount to abetment to commit suicide.
8. He next submitted that, allegations of demand of
Rs.1,00,000/- by way of improvisation. That, the reason for which
demand was made, was not in existence. That, in fact there was no
demand, and even no cruelty in the backdrop of demand or there is
no evidence in that regard or allegations to that extent are also
general, vague and non specific. He pointed out that, there is no
element of abetment or inducement to commit suicide so as to
attract offence under section 306 IPC.
9. He also submitted that, charge of section 304-B IPC is
merely framed because death has taken place within 7 years. He
pointed out that, for attracting said charge, cruelty has to be
established that too having nexus with suicide. Here, there is weak
-9- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
or no evidence on the point of cruelty and demand and therefore he
questions the guilt recorded by trial Judge for said offence. He
emphasized that there is no material to suggest that soon before
alleged suicide there was any cruelty in the backdrop of any dowry
demand so as to accept the case of prosecution for said charge.
10. Lastly he submitted that, learned trial court has failed
to consider and appreciate the evidence in proper perspective.
Learned trial court has also failed to appreciate settled law and
therefore he seeks indulgence by setting aside the impugned
judgment by allowing the appeal.
On behalf of Respondent - State :-
11. Canvassing in favour and supporting the judgment,
learned APP would submit that, shortly after 2 to 3 months of
marriage, there was cruelty, beating on petty counts. That, there is
evidence to that extent of father, uncle and neighbour to whom
victim reported that there was demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for
Government job. On account of non fulfillment, there was ill
treatment. All accused resided together. That, deceased was in
their custody. Therefore, they are answerable for unnatural death
of deceased. That, as all ingredients to attract the charges were
available, learned trial court correctly held appellant guilty and as
-10- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
such it is her submission that there is no reason to interfere in well
reasoned and sound judgment.
APPRECIATION AND ANALYSIS
12. Undisputedly, marriage of appellant and deceased is of
05.05.2002. Going by the prosecution story, it is emerging that,
there are two types of allegations, i.e. firstly, inflicting cruelty on
petty counts and secondly harassment for demand of Rs.1,00,000/-
for securing job. Witnesses, who are examined on above indictment
are father PW1 Sukhdeo, who is informant, PW2 Raja maternal
uncle, one neighbour PW5 Sangita and PW6 Archana sister.
Obviously, evidence of father, sister and maternal uncle assumes
importance. However, maternal uncle has acted in dual capacity
i.e. as a pancha and in testimony in that reference he has deposed
about treatment meted out to Shubhangi. Sum and substance of
the testimonies of above witnesses are already dealt in aforesaid
paragraphs. Therefore, it would be also necessary to assess as to
whether their testimonies were intact and stood unshaken while
facing cross.
Cross of PW1 father informant commences from
paragraph no.4. Initial questions are about education of victim,
accused persons to be in relation, financial conditions of accused
during talks of marriage. Even in paragraph no.5 it is noticed that,
informant himself admitted that at the time of marriage and even
-11- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
at the time of death of Shubhangi, appellant was in private service.
In paragraph no.6 he answered that, his daughter Shubhangi after
marriage came to informant firstly in the month of "Ashad" and
thereafter at the time of "Rakhi Pournima" i.e. which generally
falls in the months of August and at the time of "Mahalaxmi
festival" which is during Diwali festival. Therefore, consequently,
above material shows that around three visits were paid by
Shubhangi to her father. Omission is brought in same paragraph
regarding "after December 2002 Shubhangi came for four times
and every time she told about demand of Rs.1,00,000/-". He
admitted in paragraph no. 6 that, "it is incorrect to say that,
because Shubhangi had not at all come to me after Diwali in the
year 2002, she had not disclosed such demand and therefore he
has not mentioned so at the time of lodging of his complaint". He
also admitted that, on the earlier night of death of Shubhangi at
11:00 p.m., his wife had spoken to Shubhangi on phone also.
However, his wife i.e. mother of Shubhangi is surprisingly not
examined. It is pertinent to note that, on the same night Shubhangi
went missing. The nature of conversation between daughter and
mother would have thrown sufficient light and could have been
useful for both prosecution as well as defence. In paragraph no. 7
there are questions about the length, depth and condition of the
well and then entire denial.
-12- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
While under cross at the hands of accused no.2, initial
cross is confined to pre-marriage visits of each of the side, sale
transaction by complainant to raise money. Again in paragraph
no.10 informant has admitted about visits of his daughter and
appellant to their house on holidays; they going together for
movies with her brother, two entrances to the house of accused. In
paragraph no. 11 he admitted that till the month of Shravan, she
had come only once. He expressed his ignorance about any issues
of Shubhangi pertaining to her menses. Even again he has
admitted that, on the earlier date there were telephonic talks
between his wife and daughter. Then there is denial to all questions
and suggestions in paragraph no.12. In paragraph no.13 he has
admitted that accused were present in the Ghati Hospital and that
they had attended the funeral. He admitted about not reporting in
the complaint regarding dowry amount and Rs.15,000/- paid for
ornaments to appellant. He answered that he did inform police at
the time of lodging complaint and at the time of recording
supplementary statement that in response to the phone message
from son Yogesh, after returning to my residence, from my
working place on 23.03.2003, he had called Archana to question
whether Shubhangi had come to Jalna; about informing brother
Namdeorao and Raju about missing and on their arrival frantic
search being undertaken, but he is unable state why such material
-13- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
is not finding place in the complaint as well as in supplementary
statement.
13. On visiting cross faced by Sister PW6 Archana,
omission is brought in the statement that "on 23.03.2003,
Shubhangi told her that accused no.1 to 4 were subjecting her to
cruelty asking her to bring Rs.1,00,000/-. She answered that, after
marriage, she went to house of accused only once and she admitted
about telling Shubhangi i.e. when she reported about cruelty, that
it was bound to be in marital life.
Now, if cross faced by maternal uncle PW2 is visited, it
is noticed that, he admitted that his statement was never recorded
by police and for the first time he was deposed before the court
about Shubhangi meeting him at the residence of complainant and
telling that all accused were subjecting her to cruelty on petty
reasons and accused demanding Rs.1,00,000/- for employment.
Rest of the cross is on the point of spot to which he has acted as a
pancha.
14. Therefore, taking into account above discussed
substantive evidence, it is noticed that, father alleges that after 2
to 3 months of marriage, accused nos.1 to 4 subjected Shubhangi
cruelty on petty counts. There is no clarification or elaboration
-14- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
also as to what was the type of cruelty, its nature and on which
petty counts and specifically which of the accused. He has stated
that whenever Shubhangi came, she used to inform cruelty, but he
himself has admitted in cross that her first visit was in the month
of Ashad, then second time was at Rakhi Pournima and third time
was at the time of Diwali. All these visits were therefore during
Ashad, which falls in July, then in August and three months
thereafter i.e. Diwali. Father, uncle and sister are not consistent as
to since when ill treatment began. Therefore coupled with omnibus
allegations of cruelty being meted out on petty counts, these
witnesses have not given instances or nature of cruelty. Sister
PW6 Archana is found to be deposing about hearing from
Shubhangi that accused nos.1 to 4 were taunting and subjecting
her to cruelty on petty counts. But her father informant has not at
all stated about any taunting or on what count and even she has
not elaborated about it. She claims to have heard about demand of
Rs.1,00,000/- from Shubhangi during her visit only at the time of
Sankrant and in February 2003 i.e. at the time of gathering of their
community.
15. Consequently, even she has not elaborated except
stating that there was cruelty. Though immediate neighbour and
childhood friend of Shubhangi is examined as PW5, her evidence is
-15- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
virtually for no use to prosecution because she has stated that,
after marriage she met Shubhangi on 2 to 3 occasions. However,
she has not deposed about hearing anything from Shubhangi
regarding any cruelty or ill treatment. She claims that at the time
of Sankrant, when they both met, Shubhangi merely told about her
husband receiving recruitment call and accused nos.1 to 3 "asking"
her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from parents. Therefore, this witness
has not stated about any cruelty on petty counts as is stated by
father and uncle.
16. Specific allegations of prosecution is regarding demand
of Rs.1,00,000/- for securing job for appellant as a police constable.
In support of such accusation prosecution has adduced evidence of
PW7 Vasant an Employment Officer at Exh.47 and this witness has
stated that, on 14.01.2003 he had issued call letter to the appellant
for recruitment for the post of Police Constable and he identified it
to be at Exh.48. He further deposed that, on 15.01.2003 DSP Office
issued communication and proposed recruitment was cancelled
and it was postponed and decided to be held on 28.03.2003 and
accordingly he issued fresh call letter on 17.03.2003.
In cross he admitted that he did not possess any
document to show that on 15.03.2003 he had issued fresh call
letter in favour of appellant.
-16- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
17. It is to be noted that, father informant in his
examination-in-chief deposed that, after December 2002 accused
nos.1 to 4 were consistently subjected Shubhangi to cruelty by
beating her and asking her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- for getting
Government job. However, testimony of above independent witness
PW7 Vasant goes to show that process of call letter was in March
2003. Therefore, the question arises is why would there be demand
of Rs.1,00,000/- almost three months prior to receipt of call letter.
Father has already admitted that since previous to the marriage
and even at the time of death of Shubhangi appellant was working
in the company. Father though claimed there was consistent
beating in the backdrop of demand of Rs.1,00,000/-, maternal
uncle PW2 Raja has not uttered about Shubhangi being beaten as
he merely stated about hearing from Shubhangi regarding demand
of Rs.1,00,000/- for getting service. Neither sister nor childhood
friend PW5 Sangita speak about beating to Shubhangi.
In the light of above quality of material emerging, there
are apparently general allegations of cruelty being meted out on
petty counts and demand of Rs.1,00,000/- being made for job, but
above discussion creates doubt for the simple reason that alleged
demand is even prior to receiving call letter. Hence, story of
prosecution comes under shadow of doubt even on the point of
demand and ill treatment.
-17- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
18. Here, admittedly, Shubhangi ended up her life by
jumping in the well. She allegedly went missing on the night of
22.03.2003 and was said to be search for. Moot question is what
transpired in immediate proximity to alleged suicide. It is
pertinent to note that complainant informant admitted that there
were telephonic talks between Shubhangi and his wife on the same
night. Surprisingly, what was the nature of talks has not come on
record. Mother of Shubhangi has not stepped into witness box for
the best reasons known to prosecution. It was important piece of
evidence because same night Shubhangi went missing and was
found dead on the morning in the well. Therefore, what triggered
the episode of suicide is a mystery.
19. Defence has come with a specific case that appellant
was at his work place rendering night duty. His such defence has
not been seriously challenged or shaken. Appellant himself has
stepped into the witness box at Exh.62. He deposed that,
Shubhangi was in the habit of consuming pills for preventing
pregnancy to which he had opposed. In paragraph no.3 of the
examination-in-chief, he has also deposed about joint meeting of
both sides held on 26.09.2002 for giving understanding to
Shubhangi to refrain from taking pills to prevent pregnancy. In
-18- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
spite of being cross examined by leaned APP his such testimony
does not seem to have been challenged at all except suggesting that
he falsely deposed about it. Appellant further deposed that, on
22.03.2003 he and Shubhangi had proposed to pay visit to
gynecologist and there was altercation between them. He
specifically deposed that, he went to attend duty at 11:00 p.m. that
night and when he returned home he learnt that Shubhangi was
missing. In support of plea of alibi, he has examined his own
maternal uncle as DW2. While facing cross, very Investigating
Officer in paragraph 6 admitted that, Dhananjay Murtikar
Manager of the company, namely, 'Mangalam Quaeels' had
informed that, during the intervening night of 22.03.2003 to
23.03.2003 accused was discharging his duty in the company.
Therefore, plea of alibi is virtually substantiated.
20. Now, it is emerging that, husband was in the house
only up to 11:00 p.m. and thereafter he left for duty. Dead body
was noticed in the morning of 23.03.2003. Question therefore is
what triggered the episode of jumping. Appellant in his
examination-in-chief in paragraph no. 6 himself deposed that on
22.03.2003, there was quarrel between him and Shubhangi at
10:00 p.m. and she had brought pregnancy test strip and the test
of pregnancy turned down to be positive. But, she was keen in
-19- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
terminating it and he had opposed the same, resulting into
altercation and thereafter he left. Informant father himself has
admitted that there were telephonic talks between Shubhangi and
her mother on same night. As stated above, topic of talks has not
come on record. Therefore, material available is only to the extent
that there was altercation on the point of refraining pregnancy.
This is coming from the very mouth of husband accused and not
from any other source.
21. In the considered opinion of this court, above material
indicates that, merely on such count Shubhangi took extreme
steps. Now question is whether appellant intended to indulge into
altercation with specific intention or knowledge that she should
take the extreme steps of jumping in the well, in the opinion of this
court, the answer in negative. It is the solitary episode of quarrel
between husband and wife and it cannot be said to be so sufficient
cause so as to end up the life itself. He having left the house, the
very aspect of abetment, inducement or incitement which are sine
qua non for offence under section 306 IPC are missing in the case.
Resultantly, even charge of 306 IPC does not stand.
22. It seems that, prosecution indicted appellant and his
parents for commission of offence under section 304-B IPC on
-20- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
accusation that there was cruelty and harassment and suicide
being committed within seven years, said offence too gets attracted.
However, it is noticed that at the first count, there is no evidence
for namesake suggesting any dowry decided to be paid. Legal
position is fairly settled by numerous judgments, but law on this
aspect is crystallized in the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Baijnath v. State of M.P. (2017) 1 SCC 101 and the relevant
paras in the said judgment, are borrowed and quoted here under :-
"25. Whereas in the offence of dowry death defined by Section
304-B of the Code, the ingredients thereof are:
(i) death of the woman concerned is by any burns or bodily
injury or by any cause other than in normal circumstances, and
(ii) is within seven years of her marriage, and
(iii) that soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of the husband for, or in
connection with, any demand for dowry.
The offence under Section 498A of the Code is attracted qua the
husband or his relative if she is subjected to cruelty. The
explanation to this Section exposits "cruelty" as:
(i) 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 mental or physical) or
(ii) harassment of the woman, where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
-21- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on
account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.
26. Patently thus, cruelty or harassment of the lady by her
husband or his relative for or in connection with any demand for
any property or valuable security as a demand for dowry or in
connection therewith is the common constituent of both the offences.
27. The expression "dowry" is ordained to have the same
meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The
expression "cruelty", as explained, contains in its expanse, apart
from the conduct of the tormentor, the consequences precipitated
thereby qua the lady subjected thereto. Be that as it may, cruelty or
harassment by the husband or any relative of his for or in
connection with any demand of dowry to reiterate, is the gravamen
of the two offences."
Bearing above legal position in mind, here, it is noticed
that, informant father PW1 Sukhdeo, maternal uncle PW2 Raja,
sister PW6 Archana as well as neighbour PW5 Sangita have not
uttered a word about demand of dowry or Shubhangi subjected to
cruelty in that backdrop. So called demand of Rs.1,00,000/- has
cropped up subsequent to marriage. As discussed in aforesaid
paragraph, allegations are of subjecting cruelty on petty counts
without elaborating or quoting instances. Therefore, merely
because death has taken place within seven years, said charge
-22- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
cannot be attracted, more particularly when necessary ingredients
for the said charge are missing in the entire evidence. Very
recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Charan Singh @
Charanjit Singh v. The State of Uttarakhand, 2023 LiveLaw SC
341, crystallized the legal position in case of charge of 304-B IPC
and 498-A IPC. Applying the same with evidence in the case in
hand, in the considered opinion of this court, even said charge is
misplaced and misdirected.
23. Original complainant has preferred criminal revision
praying for both, enhancement of sentence awarded to the
appellant husband and for challenging the acquittal of accused
nos.1, 3 and 4 by learned trial Judge.
However, after re-appreciation and re-analysis of the
evidence, this court has held that, evidence of prosecution does not
make out a case for recording guilt of even husband for any of the
charge for which he was charge-sheeted. On re-appreciation and re-
analysis, there is no cause or case made out to even disturb the
findings of acquittal. Therefore, acquittal of accused nos.1, 3 and 4
being justified is kept intact. Hence, revision has no substance and
is devoid of merits. Hence, the following order is passed :-
-23- Cri.Appeal.337.2004
ORDER
I) The criminal appeal is allowed.
II) The conviction awarded to appellant - Sachin Jagannath
Tayade in Sessions Case No.139 of 2003 by III Ad-hoc
Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad on 27.04.2004
for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 306 and
304-B of Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set
aside.
III) The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishable
under sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B 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.
(VII) The criminal revision application is dismissed.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)
Tandale
