Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra vs Shashikant S.Jadhav And Ors on 3 January, 2025
Author: Madhav J. Jamdar
Bench: Madhav J. Jamdar
2025:BHC-AS:238
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.680 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant
Versus
Shashikant S. Jadhav and Ors. ...Respondents
_______________________________________________________________
Ms. P. P. Bhosale, for the Appellant/State.
None for the Respondents.
_______________________________________________________________
CORAM: MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.
DATED: 3rd JANUARY 2025
JUDGMENT:
1. Heard Ms. Bhosale, learned APP appearing on behalf of the State.
None appears for the Respondents although served.
2. The challenge in this Criminal Appeal filed under Section 378(1)
of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ("CrPC") is to the order of
acquittal passed by the learned IInd Ad-hoc Addl. Sessions Judge,
Raigad, in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2002 by which the learned
Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the accused for the offences
punishable under Sections 306, 498-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code,
1860 ("IPC").
3. It is the main contention of Ms. Bhosale, learned APP that the
evidence on record clearly shows that offence under Sections 306, 498-
A r/w. 34 of IPC is committed by the Respondent Accused. She
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
submitted that the marriage of the deceased was solemnized in the year
1999 and the incident in question took place on 13 th June 2002. She
submitted that the evidence on record clearly shows the involvement of
the accused in the serious crime under Sections 306, 498-A r/w. 34 of
IPC. She therefore submitted that the impugned order be set aside.
4. The prosecution case is set out in paragraph 2 of the impugned
order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Said paragraph No.2
reads as under:
"2. In short, the prosecution case is that the
accused are parents-in-law and brothers-in-law
of deceased Komal. The marriage of the
deceased Komal was performed with one Kiran
in the year 1999. Since after the marriage the
accused who are the in laws of the deceased
Komal were subjecting the deceased to
physical and mental cruelty and being fade-up
with the cruelty, the deceased had committed
suicide by jumping into the well on
13.06.2002. It is the case of the prosecution
that on the previous day of the incident, there
was a quarrel between the accused Mahesh
and deceased and she had left the house in
anger and had not returned home. The
husband of the defendant had then enquired
about her with her brother as to whether she
had been to his house. But the deceased had
not been to his house and other sister of
deceased were then intimated. Her sister Hema
Indulkar rushed to the spot and noticed that
her sister was missing and did not return home
entire night. They all were search of deceased.
But she could not be traced out on that day.
She, therefore, towards the village Padhavali.
On her way, she noticed the crowd around the
well and when she went to see went to see
what happened. That her sister Komal floating
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
on the water in the well in dead condition.
She then went to the Police Station and gave
intimation about the death of her sister to the
Police. On her intimation case was registered
and enquired into. Thereafter, on the same
day, the mother of the deceased had lodged the
complaint about the incident."
(Emphasis added)
5. The prosecution has examined total four witnesses. However, the
important witnesses are two namely P.W.1-Hema Indulkar, sister of the
deceased and P.W.2-Sumati Shankar Divekar, mother of the deceased.
The evidence of both these witnesses show that the marriage of the
deceased with Kiran Jadhav was solemnized in the year 1999. It has
come in their evidence that there was some dispute between the
deceased and her younger brother-in-law Mahesh Shashikant Jadhav
(Accused No.3) and evidence of P.W.2-Sumati, i.e. mother of the
deceased shows that said accused No.3 was not talking with the
deceased and he was not eating any food prepared by the deceased. The
evidence further shows that the deceased was harassed as father-in-law
and mother-in-law of the deceased i.e. accused No.1 & 2 were
demanding her ornaments for the purpose of performing marriage of
her brother-in-law.
6. After appreciating the evidence on record the learned trial Court
has held that the deceased died by suicide. However, it is further held
that the prosecution failed to prove that accused in furtherance of their
common intention abated the commission of suicide by the deceased by
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
subjecting her to cruelty in the meaning of Section 498-A of IPC and the
prosecution failed to prove that since 25th April 1999 till 12th June 2002
the accused in furtherance of their common intention subjected
deceased-Komal to cruelty by their willful conduct of such a nature as
was likely to drive her to commit suicide. The learned Trial Court
while acquitting the accused of all the offences, alleged against accused
has inter alia given following reasons:
"1. As such, a careful perusal of the averments in
that regard in the complaint, reveal that the
allegation of complaint by the deceased about the
ill-treatment are only against the father-in-law and
mother-in-law of the deceased and there are no
allegations in regard to any ill-treatment by brother-
in-law prior to the incident on any count. [Page 15/
Para 11]
2. Further, as is clear that the marriage of the
was performed in the year 1999 and it is not
specified by any of witnesses to since when alleged
demand of ornaments was being made by the
accused. [Page 16 /Para 11]
3. The complaint also appear to have out forth
totally a new theory in her evidence about the
alleged quarrel between the accused and the
neighbour and that the deceased was asked to
intervene and when she intervened, accused
Mahesh slapped her and because of such insult she
left the house, etc., and that do not appear to have
been stated by the complaint which was lodged
immediately after the incident. [Page 16 /Para 11]
4. As is further clear from the evidence of her
mother and in the evidence of P.W.1 sister of the
deceased the only grievance of the deceased stated
to them was that the accused were asking the
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
deceased to given the ornaments for the marriage
of her brother-in-law and for that purpose she was
being ill-treated. Apart from the fact that no details
as to in what manner the deceased was ill-treated
by the accused are given in the complaint or in the
evidence of P.W. 2 the version of P.W.1 in that
respect appear to be totally afterthought one
because there was no such averments in her
statement before the Police recorded after the
death. [Page 18/Para 13]
5. Moreover, accepting for a while that such
demand was there and also such beating was there,
even as per the version of P.W.2 mother of the
deceased the real reason for deceased to leave the
house and commit suicide was the alleged quarrel
between the accused and neighbour in which the
deceased was asked to interfere and when she
interfered the accused Mahesh had slapped her and
also had beaten her and if so that in no way can be
termed as an abatement or cruelty within the
meaning of Section 498-A IPC. [Page 18/Para 14]
The reasons recorded by the learned Trial Court are in accordance
with the evidence on record. In any case the Accused are entitled to
get benefit of doubt.
7. The Supreme Court in the case of Babu Sahebgouda Rudragoudar
Vs. State of Karnataka1 has held in paragraph Nos.38 to 42 as follows:
"38. First of all, we would like to reiterate the
principles laid down by this Court governing the
scope of interference by the High Court in an
appeal filed by the State for challenging acquittal of
the accused recorded by the trial court.
39. This Court in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar
[Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471 :
(2022) 2 SCC (Cri) 31] encapsulated the legal
position covering the field after considering various
1 2024 8 SCC 149
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
earlier judgments and held as below : (SCC pp.
482-83, para 29
"29. After referring to a catena of
judgments, this Court culled out the
following general principles regarding
the powers of the appellate court while
dealing with an appeal against an order
of acquittal in the following words :
(Chandrappa case [Chandrappa v. State
of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415 :
(2007) 2 SCC (Cri) 325] , SCC p. 432,
para 42)
'42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general
principles regarding powers of the
appellate court while dealing with an
appeal against an order of acquittal
emerge:
(1) An appellate court has full power to
review, reappreciate and reconsider the
evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
puts no limitation, restriction or
condition on exercise of such power and
an appellate court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion,
both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as,
"substantial and compelling reasons",
"good and sufficient grounds", "very
strong circumstances", "distorted
conclusions", "glaring mistakes", etc. are
not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal. Such phraseologies are
more in the nature of "flourishes of
language" to emphasise the reluctance
of an appellate court to interfere with
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to
come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must
bear in mind that in case of acquittal,
there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of
innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be
presumed to be innocent unless he is
proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having
secured his acquittal, the presumption
of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial
court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded
by the trial court.''
40. Further, in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka
[H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC
581 : (2023) 3 SCC (Cri) 748] this Court
summarised the principles governing the exercise of
appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal
against acquittal under Section 378CrPC as follows :
(SCC p. 584, para 8)
"8. ... 8.1. The acquittal of the accused
further strengthens the presumption of
innocence;
8.2. The appellate court, while hearing
an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to
reappreciate the oral and documentary
evidence;
8.3. The appellate court, while deciding
an appeal against acquittal, after
reappreciating the evidence, is required
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
to consider whether the view taken by
the trial court is a possible view which
could have been taken on the basis of
the evidence on record;
8.4. If the view taken is a possible view,
the appellate court cannot overturn the
order of acquittal on the ground that
another view was also possible; and
8.5. The appellate court can interfere
with the order of acquittal only if it
comes to a finding that the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the
basis of the evidence on record was that
the guilt of the accused was proved
beyond a reasonable doubt and no other
conclusion was possible."
41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the
scope of interference by an appellate court for
reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the
trial court in favour of the accused has to be
exercised within the four corners of the following
principles:
41.1. That the judgment of acquittal
suffers from patent perversity;
41.2. That the same is based on a
misreading/omission to consider
material evidence on record; and
41.3. That no two reasonable views are
possible and only the view consistent
with the guilt of the accused is possible
from the evidence available on record.
42. The appellate court, in order to interfere with the
judgment of acquittal would have to record pertinent
findings on the above factors if it is inclined to reverse
the judgment of acquittal rendered by the trial court."
(Emphasis added)
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
8. Thus, what the Supreme Court has held that an Appellate Court
while considering appeal against acquittal has to bear in mind that in
case of acquittal there is total presumption in favour of the accused.
Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the
fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall
be presumed to be innocent unless, he is proved guilty by competent
Court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal the
presumption of his innocence is further reinforced , re-affirmed and
strengthen by the Trial Court. It has been further held that if two
reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on
record, the Appellate Court should not disturb the finding of the
acquittal recorded by the Trial Court. It has been further held that the
Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it come
to the findings that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the
basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion is possible.
9. I have perused the evidence on record and particularly the
evidence of P.W.1 i.e. the sister of the deceased and P.W.2 i.e. the mother
of the deceased. The conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court
are possible conclusions. The evidence on record clearly show that the
only allegation against the accused No.3-younger brother-in-law is that
he was not on talking terms with the deceased and he was not eating
21-Appeal-680-2003.doc
food prepared by the deceased. However, other allegations are against
the parents of the deceased. The analysis of the evidence on record and
the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court show that a possible
view of the matter is taken as set out herein above. In any case this is
not a case where on basis of evidence on record the only conclusion
which can be recorded is the guilt of the accused was proved, beyond a
reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.
10. The Appellate Court can set aside the judgment of the Trial Court
acquitting the accused only if it comes to the finding and the only
conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of evidence on record
was that the guilt of the accused was proved, beyond a reasonable
doubt and no other conclusion was possible. On the basis of evidence
on record it cannot be said that the guilt of the accused was proved,
beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion is possible. Thus,
no case is made out for interference in the impugned order.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed however, with no order as to
costs.
[MADHAV J. JAMDAR, J.]
