Bombay High Court
Shakuntalabai Govind Alhat vs Pramod Sakharam Nikale And Ors on 23 September, 2024
2024:BHC-AUG:22683 1 101-Cri.Revn.Appln.2-05, oral jud.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.2 OF 2005
Shakuntalabai W/o Govind Alhat,
Age : 49 Years, Occu. : Household,
R/o R.B-II/7/3-1D Panchavati Colony,
Manmad, Tq. Nandgaon, Dist. Nashik. ... Applicant.
Versus
1. Pramod S/o Sakharam Nikale,
Age 28 years, Occu : Business,
R/o Raste Suregaon, Tq. Yeola,
Dist. Nashik.
2. Kusumbai W/o Sakharam Nikale,
Age 50 years, Occu : Household,
R/o Raste Suregaon, Tq. Yeola,
Dist. Nashik.
Now at Vidya Nagar, Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
3. Savita W/o Ravindra Pagare,
Age 34 years, Occu : Doctor,
R/o Vidya Nagar, Vaijapur,
Dist. Aurangabad.
4. Ravindra S/o Haribhau Pagare,
Age 44 years, Occu : Service,
R/o As above.
5. The State of Maharashtra. ... Respondents.
...
Advocate for Applicant : Mr. D. S. Ingole.
APP for Respondent-State : Mr. AAA Khan.
Advocate for Respondent No.2 : Mr. A. G. Jadhav.
Advocate for Respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4 : Mr. S. S. Dudhane h/f
Mr. V. R. Dhorde.
...
CORAM : S. G. MEHARE, J.
DATE : 23.09.2024
2 101-Cri.Revn.Appln.2-05, oral jud.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and the
respective learned counsels for the respondents/accused.
2. The applicant/mother of the deceased married woman
impugned the judgment and order of acquittal of the learned
Sessions Judge, Aurangabad passed in Sessions Case No.80 of
2004, dated 04.10.2004.
3. The deceased was married to applicant No.1 on
17.11.2002 and died on 03.12.2003. She was treated with the
private doctor for administering the poison. However, she
could not survive. The report was lodged after the post death
ceremony alleging that the deceased was harassed and ill-
treated for dowry. Hence, she consumed the poison.
4. The charges for the offences punishable under Sections
306, 304-B, 498-A and 304-B of the IPC were framed. The
applicant had a case that they never ill-treated the deceased.
They never demanded for dowry. The deceased had mistakenly
consumed the poisonous substance. Immediately after the
incident, one of the co-accused took her to the hospital. She
was treated there. The parents were also attending the hospital
3 101-Cri.Revn.Appln.2-05, oral jud.odt
during her treatment. As a fashion of the day, all family
members were roped as accused in the crime. The prosecution
examined the relevant witnesses. However, the learned
Sessions Judge appreciating the evidence, discussing the law
held that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges
against the accused.
5. The learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner argued
that there were sufficient circumstances to establish that the
deceased committed suicide due to harassment and cruelty for
dowry. The death was within 7 years, hence, presumption
under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act was applied.
The learned Sessions Judge did not appreciate the law
correctly. He recorded the hypothetical finding. The entire
circumstances were against the accused. In the normal course,
she had no reason to consume the poison. She lost the life in a
short span or her marriage. Therefore, revision application
may be allowed.
6. Per contra, the respective learned counsels for the
respondents submit that the learned Sessions Court had
considered the entire facts and circumstances, the conduct of
the accused as well as the prosecution witnesses. The learned
Sessions Court has correctly applied the law as regards the
4 101-Cri.Revn.Appln.2-05, oral jud.odt
demand of dowry and ill-treatment to the deceased for
unlawful demand. The deceased was never coerced for illegal
demand and never consistently harassed her to compel her to
commit suicide. The impugned judgment and order is well
reasoned. There are no errors of law. Hence, the revision
application deserves to be dismissed.
7. Perused the impugned judgments and orders. No doubt,
the deceased died in a short span of her marital life. It is not
the rule that when the death is caused in seven years, the
presumption under Section 113-A or B is applied mechanically.
Before applying such presumptions, the prosecution has to
establish the charges beyond the reasonable doubts. The
prosecution has also to bring the circumstances proving the
nexus of the accused coercing the deceased to end the life.
The post and pre incident conduct of the accused are the
relevant circumstances. The learned Sessions Judge had
discussed all the circumstances with a material admission of
treating doctor that the poison was administered accidentally.
The Court has correctly recorded that every attempt was made
to save the life of the deceased. The post death conduct of the
accused was specifically shows that the entire family members
of the deceased were supporting her for her beauty parlour and
5 101-Cri.Revn.Appln.2-05, oral jud.odt
education. There were no circumstances to doubt the conduct
of the respondents. Their relations were good. But it was a
mishap.
8. After perusing the impugned judgment and order, the
Court is of the view that the impugned judgment and order of
the learned Sessions Judge is free from errors and infirmity
and does not warrant interference. There is nothing to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the
following order :
ORDER
(i) Criminal revision application stands dismissed.
(ii) The bail bonds and surety bonds of the
respondents/accused stand cancelled.
(iii) Surety stand discharged.
(iv) Rule stand discharged.
(v) R and P be returned to the learned Trial Court.
(S. G. MEHARE, J.)
...
vmk/-
