Bombay High Court
Sudhir Chandrakant Pardeshi And Ors vs State Of Maha on 17 October, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:25325
-1- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 258 OF 2004
1. Sudhir Chandrakant Pardeshi,
Age : 26 years, Occu. : Business,
2. Ganesh Chandrakant Pardeshi,
Age : 24 years, Occu. : Business,
3. Chanderkant Bhagwan Pardeshi, }
Age : 57 years, Occu. : Business, } .... Abated.
4. Sau Manda Chandrakant Pardeshi,
Age : 54 years, Occu. : Household, ... Appellants
(Orig. Accused Nos.1
to 4)
Versus
State of Maharashtra ... Respondent
...
Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. K. K. Naik, APP for Respondent - State.
Mr. R. P.Kahale h/f. Mr. Vinod P. Patil, Asstt. to APP for complainant.
...
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 09 OCTOBER 2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 17 OCTOBER 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. In instant appeal, there is challenge to the judgment
and order dated 15.04.2004 passed by learned III rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.121 of 2003 holding
appellants guilty for offence punishable under sections 498-A and
306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).
-2- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
IN BRIEF PROSECUTION VERSION IS THAT
2. Deceased Rashmi was married with appellant on
24.12.2002. After marriage she came to reside with her husband
and in-laws. After barely 2 months, she reported ill treatment.
Even during her visit at the time of Holi festival on 23.03.2003, she
reported ill treatment and taunting on various counts like not
preparing meals, giving her humiliating treatment, not allowing
her to watch T.V. In spite of she suffering from Typhoid she was
asked to do the domestic work and even she was prevented from
talking with neighbours. All this was reported during her stay at
the time of Holi festival. On 01.05.2003 news of suicide was
received by phone call from one Shankar Pardeshi and therefore,
PW1 mother lodged report Exh.36, on the basis of which crime was
registered.
3. PW6 API Saste carried out investigation and after
gathering evidence, charge-sheeted accused. All four accused were
made to face trial before III Additional Sessions Judge, who on
appreciating the evidence of in all six witnesses, by judgment and
order dated 15.04.2004 husband Sudhir, brother-in-law Ganesh,
father-in-law Chandrakant, mother-in-law Manda were held guilty
for offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 read with
section 34 IPC.
-3- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment and order of
conviction, instant appeal has been preferred.
STATUS AND ROLE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES
4. The prosecution has examined following 06 witnesses
in support of its case. Their role, status and sum and substance of
evidence is as under :
PW1 Sangita, informant and mother of deceased, stated
that, her daughter married with accused no.1 on 24.12.2002. She
went to cohabit with husband and in-laws at Varangaon. During
visit of her daughter on 06.02.2003, she deposed about receiving
complaints of ill-treatment. She also claims that similar complaints
were raised by her daughter during her visit on 23.03.2003. On
01.05.2003 information was received by one Sankar about Rashmi
committing suicide by hanging. Therefore, after funeral, she lodged
report.
PW2 Baban, paternal uncle, stated that after marriage
accused resided jointly. When his niece came to attend the
marriage ceremony on 06.02.2003, she reported ill treatment at
the hands of accused. Even during visit of 23.03.2003, she
reported taunting and harassment. According to him, there was
demand of car and for non fulfillment of the same, there was
-4- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
harassment. He also deposed about receiving news on 01.05.2003
regarding Rashmi hanged herself.
PW3 Minakshi, aunt claims that on 06.02.2003,
Rashmi told her that there was taunting, accused asked her to
fetch the water after taking a bath when the tap open at 1:30 a.m.,
prohibiting her from watching T.V., taunting for not preparing good
meal. During Holi festival also she reported ill treatment and
cruelty.
PW4 Suresh, spot pancha, who identified spot
panchanama vide Exh.25.
PW5 Dr. Aabid, autopsy surgeon, who after conducting
post mortem issued opinion about death due to asphyxia due to
hanging and according to him it was a suicidal case by hanging.
PW6 API Saste is the Investigating Officer.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of Appellants :
5. Here, there is evidence of mother informant PW1
Sangita, paternal uncle PW2 Baban and aunt PW3 Minakshi.
Precise case of appellant is that, allegations are general and vague
in nature. That, allegations are directed against all accused without
specifying role and according to learned counsel, cruelty has not
-5- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
been proved as is contemplated under law so as to attract section
498-A IPC. Submissions are also advanced that, there is nothing to
indicate that there was abetment, inducement or incitement to
commit suicide and therefore learned counsel questions the
legality and maintainability of judgment.
On behalf of Respondent - State :-
6. On the other hand, learned APP strongly supported the
judgment on the ground that mother, paternal uncle and aunt are
all consistent. That, barely after a month also deceased reported
ill-treatment at the hands of husband and in-laws. That, similar
complaint was made by her in marriage also. That, there is
evidence to that extent which is not been disturbed and only
because of above treatment Rashmi committed suicide. That, there
was no other reason and hence, learned APP justifying the
conviction and prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
7. During pendency of appeal, appellant no.3
Chandrakant was reported to be dead and therefore, out of four
appellants, appeal as regards to appellant no.3 Chandrakant
father-in-law stood abated by order dated 24.09.2024.
8. For proper appreciation and comprehension, it would
-6- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
be fruitful to reproduce the testimonies of above three witnesses in
verbatim as has been stated in witness box in trial court.
9. PW1 Sangita, mother, after stating about marriage of
deceased and naming articles given in the marriage, in paragraph
nos.2, 3 and 5, deposed as under :-
"2. .... On 06.02.2003 my daughter Rashmi came to
my house along with the accused No.1 to attend a
marriage ceremony at the house of my sister. When
we enquired with Rashmi about the behavior of
accused persons with her to her matrimonial home,
she made a complaint of ill-treatment at the hands of
accused persons. She told me that, the financial
position of accused persons is sound than us,
therefor, they give her a humilitative treatment. The
accused were asking her to fetch the water after
taking the bath in the night at about 1:00 to 2:00 a.m.
She was not allowed to watch the T.V. along with
other family members and she was asked to sleep on
a carpet. The accused were commenting on the
meals prepared by her and she was required to take
the meals whenever asked by the accused. ....
3. On 23.03.2003, myself and my husband went
to the house of accused to fetch back my daughter for
Holi festival, but the accused refused to send her on
the ground that if she left the house who will prepare
the meal. However, on our request they agreed to
-7- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
send her but with a condition that we should bring
her back to their house. Then my daughter stayed
with me for about 7/8 days and during that period
she again made complaint with me regarding the ill-
treatment at the hands of accused persons. She told
me that as one of the relative of the accused got a car
in the marriage and, therefore, asked my daughter to
bring a car. They further told that in case if her
parents were not having capacity but her uncle is
having the capacity to give a car and asked her to
bring a car.
5. She was not allowed to see any neighbourer or
to throw away the dust or to go alone to the temple.
However, I advised her that after getting an issue
there would be change in the behaviour of accused
and thereafter sent her along with her uncle
Babanrao. Whenever we tried to contact my daughter
on phone, the accused persons used to keep the
receiver by saying a wrong number. She was not
allowed to contact her on phone. The accused were
subjecting the deceased Rashmi to physical and
mental cruelty."
In paragraph no.6, she reported receiving message
initially about Rashmi sustained an electric shock, but later on
message being received that Rashmi committed suicide.
-8- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
There is extensive cross of mother. However, only
relevant cross of the mother is reproduced as under :-
In paragraph no.7, she has admitted that marriage was
settled through Babanrao. She admitted that accused was in the
business of manufacturing brick and they have doubled storied
house comprising of seven rooms. In paragraph no.9, there are
questions about reception post marriage and in paragraph no.10
she answered that neither she nor husband visited Jalgaon in the
month of February 2003. She admitted that, when her daughter
and husband came for marriage ceremony at Nagpur, they stayed
for two days. She admitted that, there was no written
communication by deceased at any point of time. In paragraph
no.11 she is questioned about visit of her daughter for Holi festival
and she answered that she stayed for 6 to 7 days. She answered
that, they do not possess any telephone and rather such facilities
at the house of her brother-in-law Babanrao. She denied knowing
whether accused no.1 had made any phone call to deceased Rashmi
at the house of Babanrao. She answered that, after Holi festival,
Rashmi readily went back with accused husband.
In paragraph no.12, she admitted that there is police
station near the compound of the hospital at Varangaon and
admitted that nobody went to police from their side in the entire
-9- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
night; that accused has also visited hospital; again police visited in
the morning also. She admitted that, dead body was taken to the
house of accused where all relatives were gathered and funeral was
conducted from the house of accused. She fairly admitted that they
made no complaint against accused at the police station at that
point of time.
Omission is brought in paragraph no.13 about she
asking daughter regarding behavior of accused, deceased telling
her regarding the ill-treatment at the hands of accused. Remaining
cross is pertaining to her husband's wages, education of Rashmi
and article given in the marriage.
10. PW2 Baban, paternal uncle, after stating about
marriage of deceased and naming articles given in the marriage, in
paragraph nos.2 and 3 deposed as under :-
"2. After the marriage Rashmi want to the house of
accused at Varangaon. All the accused were residing
jointly she had been to Nagpur along with her
husband to attend a marriage ceremony on
06.02.2003. She had been to my house and told
about her ill-treatment at the hands of accused. She
told that accused persons gave her a humiliating
treatment to her because of less financial position of
her parents than the accused. In Varangaon the tap
-10- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
water come in the mid-night at about 1:30 a.m. and
she was required to wake up to fetch the water. The
accused used to ask her to fetch the water only after
taking the bath. The accused were disliking the
meals prepared by her. They were taunting her. She
was required to take her meal only if provided by the
accused. She was not allowed to watch T.V. along
with other accused. All these facts were told by her
during her visit to my house. Thereafter we advised
her and she went away along with her husband.
3. On 23.03.2003 she came to Nagpur alongwith
her parents and at that time she had been to my
house. The parents of Rashmi as well as Rashmi told
us that the accused were not ready to send her on the
grounds that who will prepare the meal in her
absence, but on their request they agreed to send her
on a condition that they would bring her back to
Varangao."
In paragraph no. 4, he deposed about demand of car, to
do domestic work during her Typhoid, prevented from talking to
neighbours and that she was also prevented from telephone
conversation with him.
PW2 uncle in paragraph no.7 of cross admitted that, he
did not come to Varangaon before marriage of accused no.1 and
that he had not seen about the job of accused no.1 or not seen any
-11- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
truck with him. He admitted that accused no.1 had accompanied
deceased when she came her parents house and she had visited his
house on her own accord with husband and that she visited only
once and for the first time. That he and his wife were not aware
about ailment of typhoid of deceased Rashmi. He also admitted in
paragraph no.9 that there was police station adjoining to the
compound of hospital, but nobody go to the police station from
there side to lodge complaint. He admitted presence of police at the
time of receiving dead body. Omissions are brought in paragraph
no. 10 to the extent that, Shankar told him about the incident. In
paragraph no.11 he admitted that he met Shankar only once at the
time of reception and that Shankar was Mediator. Omission is
brought in paragraph no.11 regarding deceased Rashmi
committing suicide because of ill treatment.
11. PW3 Minakshi, aunt, deposed as under :-
"1. .... She came to Nagpur for the first time to
attend a marriage ceremony at my house on
06.02.2003 along with accused no.1. At that time
she told me that the financial position of accused
persons was sound than her parents, therefore, they
used to taunt her. She further told that accused
asked her to fetch the water after taking a bath when
the tap open at 1:30 a.m. She was asked to sleep on a
carpet and not on bed. She was prohibiting from
-12- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
watching the T.V. along with them. The accused
taunted her on preparation of a meal and she used to
get her meal only if provided by the accused. The
accused were not tolerating of mixing her clothes
with their clothes while washing. ......
2. The complainant and her husband brought the
deceased for Holi festival. At that time she came to
my house on one day. She told me that accused
persons were subjecting her to cruelty. She further
told me that in the marriage of one of the relative of
accused a car was given. Therefore, the accused
asked the deceased to bring a car from her parents. If
not possible, from her uncle. She was not allowed to
see any neighbourer. She was not allowed to go out
of the house for throwing dust. She was not allowed
to go alone for worship. The accused no.1 asked to
serve his parents otherwise he would left her.
However, I gave her better understanding."
PW3 Minakshi aunt, while under cross in paragraph
no.7 carries omission regarding deceased coming to their house at
the time of Holi festival and about she informing police that Rashmi
had committed suicide due to ill treatment by accused.
ANALYSIS
12. On re-appreciation and meticulous scrutiny of evidence
of informant PW1 Sangita, uncle PW2 Baban and aunt PW3
-13- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
Minakshi, what is emerging that, after marriage of appellant no.1
Sudhir with Rashmi dated 24.12.2002, she went to reside with in-
laws at Varangaon. Allegations are that, after marriage, her first
visit to the house of complainant was of 06.02.2003 and that time
on inquiry, she reported about behaviour of accused and
complaints of ill-treatment at the hands of accused are as follows :
Firstly, accused gave her humiliating treatment.
Secondly, they made her to fetch water after taking
bath in the night at around 1:00 to 2:00 a.m.
Thirdly, she was not allowed to watch T.V..
Fourthly, made to sleep on the carpet;
Fifthly, taunting on the quality of meals prepared and
made to do domestic work in spite of she suffering from Typhoid.
Sixthly, not allowed to visit neighbours and not allowed
to go alone to the temple.
Informant levelled general allegations that, her
deceased daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty.
Similar allegations are also levelled by uncle regarding
humiliation, making her fetch water at 1:30 a.m., disliking meals,
taunting, not allowing to watch T.V. along with others. Even aunt
PW3 Minakshi deposed about above behavior. In the testimony of
uncle and aunt, more particularly in the cross, which is discussed
above, it is revealed that, in the testimonies of these two witnesses,
-14- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
there are material omissions about accused subjecting Rashmi to
cruelty and she committing suicide due to it. It is admitted by
witnesses that, in Varangaon, water supply is made at late night
and therefore when the entire village is required to fetch water
after 1:00 a.m., there is nothing unusual to expect deceased to
fetch water at 1:30 a.m. or 1:00 a.m.. They are all levelling
allegations of taunting, not allowing to watch T.V., not allowing to
go alone temple, but in the considered opinion of this court, none of
the allegations has any severity or such nature of allegations would
not constitute physical and mental cruelty as almost allegations
are pertaining to domestic affairs of the house of accused.
JUDICIAL PRECEDENT :
Section 498A IPC -
13. As to what actually constitutes cruelty has been lucidly
and succinctly dealt in the landmark cases of Giridhar Shankar
Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177, Gurnaib Singh
v. State of Punjab (2013) 7 SCC 108, State of Andhra Pradesh v. M.
Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 15 SCC 582, Bhaskar Lal Sharma v.
Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604 and K. Subba Rao v. The State of
Telangana (2018) 14 SCC 452.
-15- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
14. In the light of above settled legal position, in the
considered opinion of this court, above reproduced allegations
would not constitute offence of 498A IPC. Humiliation in what
form, is not clarified. Merely sleeping on carpet also would not
amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and
by which accused is not getting clear. Likewise, preventing her to
mix with neighbour also cannot be termed as harassment.
15. The above instances could be termed as "Harassment".
But, every harassment does not amount to "cruelty" and law to
such extent has been expounded in the case of State of Andhra
Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582.
16. Admittedly, cruelty can be either mental or physical. It
is difficult to straitjacket the term cruelty by means of a definition
because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one
person may not constitute cruelty for another person. Law to this
extent is clearly settled in the case of G.V. Siddaramesh v. State of
Karnataka, (2010) 3 SCC 152.
Section 306 IPC -
17. There is charge under section 306 IPC. In order to
attract the said charge, it is incumbent upon prosecution to
-16- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
establish incitement, instigation, aiding or abetment to commit
suicide. Law to this extent has been fairly settled in series of cases.
Such legal requirements are expounded by Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC
200; Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707; S.S.
Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190; Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618.
Similar views are echoed in Netai Datta v. State of West
Bengal, (2005) 2 SCC 659; Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and
another, (2021) 19 SCC 144; M. Arjuna v. State, represented by its
Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315; Ude Singh & Others v. State
of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301; Mariano Anto Bruno & Another v.
The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387.
18. Here, what is emerging on scrutiny of evidence of
mother, uncle and aunt is that, visit of Rashmi to them was at the
time of Holi festival, which falls in March. Incident of suicide is of
01.05.2003. There is a gap of almost two months since deceased,
complainant and witnesses met each other. They have admitted
that, there was no communication from Rashmi either written or
oral, she has not conveyed that there was any instances of cruelty
in proximity to suicide. Spot panchanama shows that, glass
window was required to break open. There is no evidence to show
-17- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
that at that relevant point or any proximity to the suicide, there
was any demand, cruelty or mal-treatment so as to connect them
with the suicidal death. What triggered the suicide has remained a
mystery.
19. For applying sectoin 306 IPC, it is expected of
prosecution to demonstrate that there is live link or active role
played by appellant in instigating the suicide.
20. As pointed out learned trial Court in its judgment from
paragraph nos. 15 of judgment has observed as under :-
"It is significant to note that, the accused have not
denied the fact that they asked deceased to fetch tap
water at about 2:00 a.m. only after taking bath and
according to them, these are the good 'sanskars' to fetch
the water after taking bath. Assuming for a moment
that it may be a good 'sanskars' to fetch water after
taking bath only, but those sanskars are emerged from
the minds of orthodox people, which are not generally
followed now-a-days and they deserve to be changed
according to prevailing circumstances from time to
time. It is further observed that, had it been a good
sanskar, then why they allowed Rashmi alone to fetch
the water after taking bath only, when they were quite
aware that she was newly married. It means that said
act of accused was deliberate and intentional with a
view to harass the deceased and thus caused physical
and mental cruelty to deceased."
-18- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
Above observations clearly show that, learned trial
Judge has tried to impose his own reflection on how newly bribe
should be treated and that such act of accused making her fetch
water at odd hours amounts to physical and mental cruelty. When
prosecution witnesses have admitted that, in Varangaon, there was
usual practice of letting off water supply at such hours, when
others in the village also fetch water during night time, in the
considered opinion of this court, the above observations in
paragraph no.15 of the judgment were unwarranted.
21. Similarly, the observations in paragraph no.16 of
judgment, it is observed that, deceased was asked to take meal
after it was served to others and that she was not allowed to watch
T.V. and made to go alone to throw garbage and allowed to talk on
phone, are held by learned trial Judge to be petty affairs of daily
routine life, but learned trial Judge has thereafter observed that
cumulative effect of all such conduct amounts to mental
harassment. Even the observations subsequent to paragraph
no.16 regarding tolerance of human being to certain extent, for
mental and physical cruelty are also unwarranted and personal
observations of trial Judge. Even when there was no evidence that
conduct of accused towards deceased was incessant or consistent,
-19- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
learned trial Judge appears to have noted that ill treatment
became intolerable to her and therefore she committed suicide.
Such observations are out of place and are not based on strong
foundation. In fact it is contrary to observations in paragraph
no.17 that there is no cogent and convincing evidence on record to
show that accused persons subjected deceased to cruelty to meet
their unlawful demand. On the point of demand of car also, learned
trial Judge has held that, merely because relative got a car in
marriage, doesn't mean that they have subjected deceased to
cruelty. If such views are explicitly expressed, then the conclusion
drawn is contrary to such observations in paragraph no.17 of
judgment. Resultantly, it is axiomatic that there is erroneous
appreciation and erroneous conclusion.
22. If guilt is recorded on above evidence, then it is
doubtful as to what prompted learned trial Judge hold that offence
of suicide is attributable to accused. Consequently, findings of trial
court are patently erroneous. Here, as submitted allegations are
non specific, general or petty in nature, essential ingredients for
306 IPC are also not available, and therefore, such judgment
cannot be allowed to be sustained. Accordingly, I proceed to pass
the following order: -
-20- Cri.Appeal.258.2004
ORDER
I) The criminal appeal is allowed.
II) The conviction awarded to appellants, namely, (i) Sudhir
Chandrakant Pardeshi, (ii) Ganesh Chandrakant
Pardeshi, and (iii) Sau Manda Chandrakant Pardeshi in
Sessions Case No.121 of 2003 by learned III rd Additional
Sessions Judge, Jalgaon on 15.04.2004 for the offence
punishable under sections 498-A and 306 read with
section 34 of Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set
aside.
III) The appellant stands acquitted of the offence punishable
under sections 498-A and 306 read with section 34 of
Indian Penal Code.
IV) The bail bonds of the appellants stand cancelled.
V) The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the
appellants after the statutory period.
[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
Tandale
