Bombay High Court
Ramakant Meghnath Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra on 6 January, 2025
Author: Sarang V. Kotwal
Bench: Sarang V. Kotwal, S.M. Modak
2025:BHC-AS:1267-DB
:1: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
[1] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.260 OF 2014
Ramakant Meghnath Patil .....Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
......
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.1727 OF 2024
IN
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.260 OF 2014
......
WITH
[2] CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.151 OF 2014
1. Nitin Meghnath Patil,
2. Bhaskar Ramchandra Patil,
3. Sarasbai Bhaskar Patil,
4. Meghnath Ramchandra Patil,
5. Smt. Gulabbai Meghnath Patil .....Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .....Respondent
-----
Mr. Raju D. Suryawanshi, Advocate a/w. Suraj Naik for the
Appellants in both the Appeals.
Smt. Mankuwar M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent-State.
-----
CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL &
S.M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 06th JANUARY, 2025
1 of 34
Deshmane(PS)
::: Uploaded on - 13/01/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 13/01/2025 21:28:24 :::
:2: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT : [PER SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.]
1. Both these Appeals are decided by this common
judgment as they arise out of the same impugned judgment
and order dated 13.2.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions
Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No.171/2011. For the sake of
convenience, the Appellants are referred to by their names or
by their status before the trial Court.
2. Heard Mr. Raju Suryawanshi, learned counsel for
the Appellants in both the Appeals and Smt. Mankuwar
Deshmukh, learned APP for the Respondent-State.
3. Criminal Appeal No.260/2014 is filed by the
accused No.1 Ramakant Patil. Criminal Appeal No.151/2014 is
filed by the other accused Nos.2 to 6. The Appeals are
concerning murder of one Sheetal. Accused No.1 Ramakant
was her husband. Accused No.2 Nitin is Ramakant's brother.
Accused No.3 Bhaskar is Ramakant's uncle. Accused No.4
Sarasbai is aunt of Ramakant and wife of accused No.3
Bhaskar. Accused No.5 Meghnath was the father of Ramakant.
Accused No.6 Gulabbai is mother of Ramakant and wife of
2 of 34
:3: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
accused No.5 Meghnath. During pendency of this Appeal,
accused No.5 Meghnath has passed away. A copy of the death
certificate produced on record by learned counsel for the
Appellants is taken on record. Therefore, the Appeal preferred
by Meghnath abates.
4. At the conclusion of the trial, the accused No.1
Ramakant was convicted as under :
[i] He was convicted for commission of the offence
punishable under Section 302 of IPC and was sentenced
to suffer RI for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in
default to suffer SI for three months.
[ii] He was convicted for commission of the offence
punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of IPC and
was sentenced to suffer RI for two years and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three months.
[iii] Accused No.2 Nitin was convicted for commission of the
offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34 of IPC
and was sentenced to suffer RI for two years and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to suffer SI for three
months.
. Apart from the above conviction and sentence, all
the accused i.e. accused Nos.1 to 6 were convicted for
3 of 34
:4: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
commission of the offence punishable under Section 498-A
read with 34 of IPC and all of them were sentenced to suffer RI
for two years. All of them were acquitted from the charges of
commission of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of
IPC. Accused Nos.2 to 6 were acquitted from the charges of
commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read
with 34 of IPC. The accused Nos.3 to 6 were acquitted from the
charges of offence punishable under Section 201 read with 34
of IPC. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
The Appellants were given set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C..
5. The prosecution case is that Sheetal got married
with Accused No.1 Ramakant on 21.5.2010. Initially for a few
months everything was alright, but, subsequently the accused
started ill-treating her and started demanding Rs.3 Lakhs. The
allegations are that, on 24.4.2011, Sheetal's parents were
informed that she was serious. When they reached her
matrimonial house i.e. the house of the accused at Manda, they
found that Sheetal's body was kept on the floor and she was
dead. Sheetal's brother went to the police station and gave
4 of 34
:5: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
information about her death. An Accidental Death Report
[ADR] was lodged. The grievance of Sheetal's parents was that
it was a case of murder and the police had wrongly taken down
ADR. Therefore, they made various complaints and finally the
FIR was lodged on 26.4.2011 where there were allegations that
Sheetal had committed suicide because of harassment caused
to her. The offence was registered mainly under Section 306 of
IPC. The investigation was carried out. The family of Sheetal
was still not happy with the investigation. Various
representations were made and, therefore, the investigation
was taken over by another police officer. The supplementary
statements were recorded and the charge-sheet was filed under
section 304-B of IPC. The postmortem was conducted by a
doctor attached to J.J. Hospital. Additional charge-sheet was
filed under Section 302 of IPC. After filing of the charge-sheet,
the case was committed to the Court of Session. Initially the
charges were framed only under Sections 498-A read with 34 &
304-B read with 34 of IPC. But subsequently the charges
under Sections 302 read with 34 & 201 read with 34 of IPC
5 of 34
:6: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
were framed.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution
examined fourteen witnesses including, the father, the brother,
and aunt of the deceased, three doctors, the panchas and the
investigating officers. The accused No.1 took a specific defence
in answer to Question No.25 asked during examination under
Section 313 of Cr.P.C.. He gave the following answer :
"Her M.C. was not coming regularly and her brother's wife
was pregnant. Her M.C. came late before 10 days of the
day, so we both were happy. My brother-in-law many times
called us, but we have not met him. Then we were going to
meet him, but meanwhile her M.C. came. Therefore, she
depressed and she has committed suicide. I could not
understand why there were reddish mark on her body. I
don't know."
[Reproduced exactly as is mentioned by the learned trial
Judge]
7. The accused examined four witnesses to prove their
alibi. The defence witness No.3 Madhuri Patil was an
important witness. She was wife of the accused No.2 Nitin and
she was present in the house when the incident had occurred.
Her evidence is important.
8. The learned trial Judge considered the evidence on
6 of 34
:7: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
record and held that there was a presumption under section
113-A of Indian Evidence Act running against the accused. He
held that the prosecution has proved that her death was caused
by strangulation. He further held that the prosecution has
proved that the offence of cruelty under Section 498-A of IPC
was proved. However, he further observed that the offence
under Section 304-B of IPC was not proved as the demand was
not for dowry. He also held that it was a case of murder. He
observed that the conduct of the accused No.1, in particular,
was not natural. He did not accept the alibi evidence given by
the defence. At the same time, he gave benefit of doubt to the
accused No.2 regarding the allegations of commission of
offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. He held that the
allegations and charges under Section 302 of IPC could be
proved only against the accused No.1 alone.
9. PW-1 Balaram Sutar was father of the deceased. He
has stated that the marriage between Sheetal and the accused
No.1 Ramakant took place on 21.5.2010. For a initial period
of four months, the accused treated her properly. After that,
7 of 34
:8: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
they started abusing and ill-treating her for their demand of
Rs.3 Lakhs. Sheetal used to inform him about the same
whenever she used to come to her parental house. The
accused No.1 demanded a gold chain. PW-1 gave a gold chain
to him. He produced a receipt for purchasing that gold chain.
On one occasion, the accused No.4 Sarasbai and accused No.6
Gulabbai had come to their village Sangola, Taluka - Kalyan to
attend a religious ceremony. At that time they had said to
Sheetal that they would crush her under their feet. It is his case
that the accused No.3 Bhaskar and the accused No.5 Meghnath
used to ask whether he had made arrangement for the money.
PW-1 used to assure them that he would make the payment
whenever it was possible. He has further deposed that 4 to 5
days before Sheetal's death, the accused No.1 had come to his
house with Sheetal and had left her there. Sheetal had
informed PW-1 that the accused were harassing her and were
asking whether he had arranged for money. Within 2-3 days,
the accused No.1 Ramakant came back and took her with him.
At that time, he had asked whether PW-1 had arranged for
8 of 34
:9: 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
money. Even at that time PW-1 had told him that he would pay
the amount by installments.
On 24.4.2011 at about 4.30 p.m., one Prabhakar
Patil came to his house and told him that Sheetal was not well.
Therefore PW-1 and his family went to Sheetal's matrimonial
house. They saw that her dead body was lying on the floor.
There was a bangle in one hand. There were black marks on
the chest and some injury on the neck. The accused informed
him that Sheetal had hanged herself. PW-1's son went to the
police station and lodged the complaint against the accused
but the police did not take any action against the accused.
PW-1 had lodged the complaint against the accused after two
days. He has explained that since he was not well, he had
lodged the complaint only after two days. He has further
deposed that two months from this, he again gave his
complaint. The police did not make the investigation properly.
He identified the saree which was shown by the accused to
him. It was produced in the Court.
In the cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that the
9 of 34
: 10 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
accused and his family belonged to the same community. The
marriages of the accused No.1 Ramakant and the accused No.2
Nitin were performed on the same day but they were
performed at two difference villages viz., at Sangola where
Ramakant got married and thereafter at Birla village where
Nitin got married. Importantly some important omissions from
his FIR are brought on record by the defence. The noting of
the learned Judge shows that according to learned APP those
omissions were not from the supplementary statement but they
were only from the FIR lodged by PW-1. PW-1 accepted that he
had not told the police that the accused No.1 had demanded a
gold chain and that he had given it to him. He stated that he
had told the police that during the religious ceremony Sarasbai
and Gulabbai threatened Sheetal; but this fact was not found in
his complaint, and, he could not assign any reason why it was
not mentioned. Similar is the omission in respect of Meghnath
and Bhaskar demanding money and that he had assured them
about the future payment. He could not assign any reason as
to why this was not mentioned in his FIR. The important
10 of 34
: 11 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
omission was about the accused No.1 dropping his daughter to
his place and then taking her back within 2-3 days. He could
not explain that omission either. He has proved his FIR which is
produced on record at Exhibit-32. He accepted that his
daughter was having a mobile phone and that she used to talk
with PW-1's son using that mobile phone. He further accepted
that Nitin's wife Madhuri was pregnant at that time. He has
also admitted that the accused Bhaskar and Sarasbai were
living separately from the other accused. He denied the
suggestion that since Sheetal could not got pregnant, she
committed suicide.
10. The FIR at Exhibit-32 shows that it was registered
vide C.R. no.I-46/2011 at Kalyan Taluka police station under
Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of IPC. There is a general and
common allegation against all the accused that they were
demanding Rs.3 Lakhs from Sheetal; and on that count they
used to abuse and threaten her and sometimes used to beat
her. Besides that, there are no specific allegations in the FIR.
Exhibits-33 and 34 are the subsequent complaints made by PW-
11 of 34
: 12 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
1 to the other authorities mentioning that it was not a case of
suicide but it was a case of murder.
11. PW-2 Moreshwar Sutar was the elder brother of the
deceased Sheetal. His evidence is exactly on the similar lines as
that of PW-1. He had stated that the accused were demanding
amount for the purpose of construction business. He has
further added that, in 2011 during Holi festival the accused
demanded golden chain which was given to him. They had
given the gold ornaments during the wedding. Inspite of that,
the accused were taunting his sister. The accused Bhaskar and
Meghnath came to their house and demanded Rs.3 Lakhs for
construction business. 5 to 6 days before the incident, Sheetal
had come to their house with accused No.1. At that time, the
accused No.1 had asked for money. PW-1 and PW-2 had
assured that they would arrange money by selling the
agricultural land within one month. After that, the accused
No.1 took Sheetal with him. At that time, he was angry. This
witness had gone to the police station and had given his A.D.R.
Importantly, he has accepted that the contents written in the
12 of 34
: 13 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
ADR are true and correct. It was marked as Exhibit-39.
In the cross-examination, all the omissions from his
police statement were brought out. He could not explain as to
why the police had not recorded in his statement dated
12.7.2011 that Gulabbai and Sarasbai had threatened his
sister during a religious ceremony. He could not explain as to
why it was not mentioned in his police statement that the
accused accused No.1 had brought her to their house 5 to 6
days prior to the incident. He could not assign any reason as to
why it was not mentioned in his police statement that they had
given gold chain to him or as to why the police statement did
not mention that Sarasbai used to beat her on the provocation
given by Gulabbai. He had not told the police in his statement
recorded on 12.7.2011 that the police had not recorded his
statement as per his say on 26.4.2011. All these omissions
from the police statement of PWs-1 and 2 were put to the
investigating officer and they were duly proved by the defence.
12. Similar is the evidence of PW-11 Kantabai Sutar,
who was aunt of the deceased. Her evidence is exactly on the
13 of 34
: 14 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
similar lines and omissions from her police statement are also
on the similar lines. She could not explain as to why her
statement did not mention that the accused started subjecting
Sheetal to cruelty after 2-3 months from her marriage. Her
police statement did not contain the allegations that Sarasbai
and Gulabbai had threatened Sheetal or that during the Holi
festival they had given golden chain.
These are the main witnesses as far as the
allegations under Section 498-A of IPC and harassment caused
by the accused to the deceased Sheetal are concerned.
13. PW-3 Sharda Patil was a pancha for inquest
panchnama which is produced on record at Exhibit-41.
14. PW-4 Padmakar Mogre was a pancha for spot
panchnama produced at Exhibit-44. A Saree was seized at
that time. The spot panchnama shows that height of the iron
angle was of 10½ ft from the floor in the room where the
incident had taken place. There was a plastic chair at that spot.
Sheetal was lying near that chair. It was seized by the police.
14 of 34
: 15 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
15. PW-6 Satish Gupta was a photographer who had
taken photographs of the dead body.
16. PW-8 Punja Shinde was the police constable who
had recorded ADR on 24.4.2011. It is produced on record at
Exhibit-39. There are absolutely no allegations against any of
the accused in the ADR. There are no allegations of
harassment or murder. PW-2 has accepted that the contents of
the ADR were correct. The ADR mentions that the ladies
gathered in the house of the deceased had told him that the
deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself.
17. PW-9 Prabhakar Patil was from the village of PW-1.
He had informed PW-1 about Sheetal not feeling well.
18. PW-10 Savita Dongare was a tenant of the accused.
She was declared hostile. Her evidence is not of much
assistance either to the prosecution or to the defence.
19. PW-12 API Sayaji Gujole was the first investigating
officer who had carried out the investigation from 24.4.2011
onwards. He had carried out the spot panchnama. He had
15 of 34
: 16 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
sent the dead body for postmortem examination. The dead
body was further sent to J.J. Hospital. He recorded statements
of witnesses including PW-1. He recorded the statement of
PW-1 on 26.4.2011 and then registered the FIR.
In the cross-examination, he accepted that he made
inquiries with the neighbours of the accused but they had not
stated anything about the quarrel between the deceased and
the accused. He had not recorded their statements. He had
recorded statement of the accused No.2 Nitin's wife Madhuri.
He proved all the omissions as referred to hereinabove.
20. PW-13 PSI Ashok Kumbhar had carried out the
investigation from 12.7.2011 onwards. According to him, on
that day, ten witnesses approached him for giving their
statements. He recorded their supplementary statements. On
25.7.2011 he had filed the charge-sheet under Sections 304-B,
498-A and 34 of IPC. Subsequently, he submitted a report on
31.12.2011 mentioning that the accused had murdered the
deceased.
16 of 34
: 17 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
21. The other witnesses have given evidence regarding
the cause of death. These are all important witnesses. PW-5
Dr. Gokhale was attached to Rukminibai Hospital, Kalyan. On
25.4.2011, he examined the dead body and found ligature
mark over anterior aspect. It was a half circle only, with one
side upwards on the right side and downwards obliquely on
left side of the neck. He conceded that he was not a forensic
expert and was unable to decide whether the death was
homicidal or suicidal. He found one bruise over sternum (front
portion of the chest). Therefore, he shifted the dead body to
the Forensic Department of J.J. Hospital along with the
requisition letter. According to him, the bruise on the sternum
could be due to assault or struggle injury. He further deposed
that in case of hanging the ligature mark should be above or
over thyroid region and passing upwards and backwards
obliquely on both sides of neck. In this case he did not find
such ligature mark or injury. According to him, the ligature
mark was suspicious and, therefore, he sent the dead body to
the J.J. Hospital.
17 of 34
: 18 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
In the cross-examination, he deposed that he did
not agree that Parekh and Modi are the authorities on the
medical jurisprudence. According to him, in suicidal hanging,
there could be full circle marks. He did not agree with the
proposition mentioned in Modi's Medical Jurispurdence that in
suicidal hanging case full circle mark never appears on the
neck.
22. PW-7 Dr. Bhalchandra Chikhalkar is the most
important witness in this case. He has deposed that he
conducted the postmortem on 25.4.2011 between 1.00 p.m. to
2.35 p.m.. The tongue was inside the mouth. There was no
oozing from the ear, nostrils and from mouth. There was no
evidence of peteche within sub conjunctibal region. He noticed
two external injuries, one was a ligature mark over the neck
and other was vertical abrasion on chest anteriorly over sternal
region centrally of size 12 cm x 2.5 cm, dermal layor deep and
it was reddish. He described the ligature mark. It was
anteriorly situated just above thyroid cartridge. The total
length was 19 cm. The circumference of neck was 30 cm. The
18 of 34
: 19 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
situation of ligature mark upper border at center was 5 cm
below chin. The ligature mark was incomplete going upwards
and backwards towards the right side. It was transverse
anteriorly and slightly backwards and upwards on the left
lateral side of the neck. The skin over ligature mark was dry,
hard and reddish in colour. The area on lateral side of the
neck above ligature mark below left ear was congested with
petecheal haemorrhages. Intima of carotid artery was intact.
Hyoid bone was intact. Thyroid cartilage and hyoid cartilage
were intact. Apart from that, there were other postmortem
injuries which were multiple irregular abrasions. The final
cause of death was given after receipt of histo-pathological
report and C.A. report of viscera. The opinion was "Asphyxia
due to ligature compression of neck (unnatural)". He deposed
that the injury No.2 could be caused due to contact with hard
and rough object. It was also possible by assault or it it could
be a mark of struggle. According to him, in the case of hanging,
ligature marks would be oblique in nature and in case of
strangulation the ligature marks would be transverse. In this
19 of 34
: 20 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
case the ligature mark were not oblique in nature and were
found to be transverse. He opined that the cumulative effect of
all the injuries was that a possibility of homicidal death could
not be ruled out. But he added that it could be a case of
strangulation also. He further added that the death might be
possible by strangulation also. He further added that in case
of strangulation there is no hyoid bone fracture.
In the cross-examination, he deposed that the
deceased was not pregnant. He had given the opinion that it
could be a homicidal death or it could be a suicidal death. He
has categorically stated that few symptoms were absent and,
therefore, he was not sure that it was a homicidal or suicidal
death. He had explained that he could not be so sure because
there was no injury to carotid artery, hyoid bone was intact,
skin over ligature mark was dry, there was single ligature mark,
it was incomplete, there was no bleeding, and that there were
no abrasions around the ligature mark. He gave other reasons
also. He did not agree with the jurisprudence of Dr. Parikh.
The postmortem notes are produced on Exhibit-59.
20 of 34
: 21 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
23. PW-14 Dr. Sanklecha has deposed that she was
Associate Professor of Pathology Department of J.J. Hospital.
She received tissue bits of viscera of the deceased Sheetal. The
hospital report was produced on record at Exhibit-115. She
stated that her examination indicated neck compression and it
was possible by strangulation.
In the cross-examination, she accepted that it was
possible by all type of neck compression.
. This, in short, is the evidence led by the
prosecution.
24. On the other hand, the defence examined DW-1
Keshav Patil, who has stated that Bhaskar and Meghnath were
his relatives. On 24.4.2011, Bhaskar was present at Jambha,
Taluka - Shahapur for engagement ceremony of DW-1's son
Paresh. They were together since 10.30 a.m. in the morning
and they returned at about 4.00 p.m. On the way, accused No.3
Bhaskar received a phone call that Sheetal had committed
suicide.
21 of 34
: 22 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
In the cross-examination conducted by the APP he
admitted that besides his bare words there was no other
evidence in support of his case.
25. DW-2 Vikas Daki has stated that the accused Nos.1
& 2 had come to his house for lunch at about 12.30 p.m. and
they left after some time at 2.30 p.m.. At about 5.00 p.m., this
witness received a phone that Sheetal had committed suicide.
On 16.6.2011 the police had recorded his statement. He was
not examined as a prosecution witness.
26. DW-3 Madhuri Patil was an important witness. She
was wife of the accused No.2 Nitin. She has deposed that she
got married with the accused No.2 on the same day when
Sheetal had got married with the accused No.1. Her
matrimonial life was going on happily but DW-3 Madhuri
became pregnant and Sheetal could not become pregnant.
Therefore, Sheetal was depressed. On the date of the incident,
she herself and Sheetal only were present in the house.
Sheetal was to accompany accused No.1 for lunch at the house
of DW-2, but, she cancelled her programme and stayed at
22 of 34
: 23 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
home. Ramakant and Nitin, instead, went to the house of DW-
2 for lunch. Sarasbai, Gulabbai and Meghnath went to attend
the engagement of one Sarnobat. Bhaskar had gone to attend
another engagement ceremony. The accused Nos.1 & 2
returned at around 3.30 p.m.. At that time, the accused No.1
after going to his room found that Sheetal had hanged herself.
DW-3 and her husband rushed there. The accused No.2
informed others. Then they brought down the dead body. The
neighbours gathered.
In the cross-examination, she admitted that her
father's financial position is good and that Sheetal's father was
poor. She denied the suggestion that the accused started ill-
treating her as Sheetal's father could not pay dowry. She stated
that she and her family members did not attend the funeral.
Her statement was recorded on 26.6.2011. She deposed before
the Court that Sheetal was depressed. Some cross-examination
was conducted by the learned APP in respect of her police
statement.
27. DW-4 Manohar Sarnobat had his engagement
23 of 34
: 24 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
ceremony on 24.4.2011. It was attended by the accused
Meghnath, Gulabbai and Sarasbai since 10.00 a.m. in the
morning on 24.4.2011. He had produced a C.D. of his
engagement ceremony. He denied the suggestion that the CD
and the photographs were manipulated and that he was
deposing to save the accused.
. This is the entire evidence led in the trial.
28. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that
the prosecution has failed to prove the basic allegations of
commission of murder. The medical evidence does not prove
the prosecution case of murder beyond reasonable doubt.
There is nothing to show that the accused No.1 was alone in
the house and hence was having the exclusive knowledge
about the incident and, therefore, the burden of proving
innocence under Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not
arise. The allegations made by the prosecution witnesses in
respect of the alleged cruelty is quite vague and obviously the
allegations are made to rope in all the family members
including the cousin of the father-in-law and his wife, who
24 of 34
: 25 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
were residing separately. The allegations of cruelty are made
belatedly and they do not find place in the first statements
given by the prosecution witnesses to the police. All these
allegations are in the form of omissions from the police
statements which are duly proved through the evidence of the
investigating officers.
29. Learned APP opposed these submissions. She
relied on the medical evidence to contend that the prosecution
has proved its case that it was a murder and not a suicide. She
submitted that the injury on the sternum is not explained by
the accused. She submitted that one ear-ring was found
under the cot. This indicates that there was struggle in which
the ear-ring had fallen down and was found from under the
cot. She submitted that the three prosecution witnesses i.e. the
father, the brother and the aunt have deposed about the
demand of Rs.3 Lakhs and the ill-treatment meted out to the
deceased Sheetal. She submitted that the evidence of alibi
given through the defence witnesses is not trustworthy. The
accused have not explained the circumstances which were in
25 of 34
: 26 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
their exclusive knowledge. The accused Nos.1 & 2 had brought
down the dead body in the circumstances which are not
explained.
30. We have considered these submissions. We have
perused the impugned judgment as well as the evidence on the
record. The first point which needs to be answered is whether
the prosecution has successfully proved that Sheetal died
homicidal death or it was a suicidal death. In this context, the
evidence of the three doctors, as mentioned above, is very
important. PW-5 Dr. Gokhale has categorically accepted that
he was not an expert of forensic science and therefore he had
sent the dead body to J.J. Hospital for postmortem
examination. Therefore, no definite conclusion can be based on
his evidence.
31. PW-14 Dr. Sanklecha has produced the
histopathology report but her evidence shows that
compressing of neck was possible in all the cases, that would
include, compression by hanging or even by strangulation.
Therefore, the evidence of these two doctors do not indicate
26 of 34
: 27 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
whether the death was because of strangulation or hanging
and whether it was murder or suicide. The prosecution's
attempt was to show that it was murder by strangulation and,
therefore, the dead body was found on the floor. Nobody from
the neighbourhood had seen the dead body hanging from the
ceiling.
32. The evidence of PW-7 Dr. Chikhalkar assumes
more importance. We have reproduced the important points
from his evidence in the earlier part of our judgment. The
significant observation made by him was that the ligature mark
was incomplete and was going upwards and backwards
towards the right side. Another important feature was that
hyoid bone was intact, thyroid cartilage and hyoid cartilage
were intact. He had given his opinion that the cause of death
was due to asphyxia due to ligature compression of
neck(unnatural). He has stated that considering the injuries
and its cumulative effect the possibility of homicidal death
could not be ruled out and that the death could be by
strangulation also. But in the cross-examination he has
27 of 34
: 28 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
specifically admitted that some symptoms were absent and,
therefore, he was not sure that it was a homicidal or a suicidal
death; and he had given reasons as mentioned earlier. Since he
has categorically admitted that he was not sure whether it was
homicidal or suicidal death even after the detailed postmortem
examination and histopathology examination it is quite clear
that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt that it was a case of homicidal death. The possibility of
suicidal death is not ruled out. Therefore, in this case, benefit
of doubt in that behalf must go to the accused.
33. The next question would be, if it was not a case of
murder or if the prosecution has failed to prove that it was a
case of murder, then whether the accused can be said to have
abeted commission of suicide. In this context, the evidence of
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-11 would be important. As mentioned
earlier, their only version is that the deceased was ill-treated for
demand of Rs.3 Lakhs but that allegation is vague and general.
It is not directed towards a specific accused. No specific
instances of ill-treatment are mentioned. More importantly,
28 of 34
: 29 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
though in the examination-in-chief, those three witnesses have
deposed about some instances, in the cross-examination it is
brought out that all these descriptions of harassment in the
examination-in-chief were in the form of omissions and they
had not stated so in their police statements. Therefore their
evidence falls short of the necessity to prove the case beyond
reasonable doubt as far as the allegations of cruelty is
concerned. The evidence shows that the golden chain was
demanded by the accused No.1 and it was given to him. It is
also an omission from the police statement; but even otherwise
since his demand was fulfilled there was no occasion to cause
any ill-treatment and there was no further evidence to show
that the deceased had complained that inspite of having
received the gold chain, she was being harassed for the
demand of any other gold chain. According to PW-1 and PW-2
they had assured the accused No.1 that they would pay the
amount by installments after selling their agricultural land. But
as mentioned earlier, the accused No.1's visit to their house is
appearing only in examination-in-chief; and in the cross-
29 of 34
: 30 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
examination they have accepted that they have not stated so in
their police statements.
34. The injury on the sternum is not very clear and
even the prosecution has not produced on record any cogent
evidence or weapons by which this injury could have been
caused. The doctor has opined that it was possible that the
deceased had come in contact with a hard and blunt surface.
35. Most significantly PW-2 had immediately gone to
the police station on 24.4.2011 itself and had reported the
death of his sister Sheetal. He has specifically admitted that the
contents of that report were true and correct. That report was
treated as Accidental Death Report. In that report, there is
absolutely no allegation of any ill-treatment or harassment
against any of the accused. PW-2 has not even expressed any
suspicion against anybody. This is a very significant document
in the context of the case.
36. After about two days, the FIR was lodged by PW-1
on 26.4.2011 and in that FIR also there are only general
30 of 34
: 31 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
allegations against all the accused together. No further specific
instances were mentioned. These witnesses have accepted that
when their supplementary statements were recorded in July,
2011, at that time, they have not made the grievance that their
statements were not recorded as per their say.
37. In this view of the matter, it is quite clear that the
prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
the deceased was treated with cruelty.
38. In this situation, even presumption under section
113-A of the Evidence Act will not operate against the accused.
The learned Judge has already held that the prosecution has
failed to prove the allegations under Section 304-B of IPC.
There is no challenge to that finding by the prosecution.
Therefore, that finding stays and we do not see any infirmity in
that part of reasoning given by learned trial Judge whereby he
has acquitted all the accused from the charges of commission
of offence punishable under Section 304-B of IPC.
39. We are not impressed with the submission that the
31 of 34
: 32 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
conduct of the accused was suspicious. The moment the
accused No.1 had seen the deceased hanging from the ceiling
the natural reaction was to bring her down and make efforts to
save her. But by that time she was already dead.
40. In this background, though the defence had led
evidence of alibi; since the prosecution has failed to prove the
basic facts, infirmity if at all in the defence witnesses will not
make any difference. Even otherwise, we find no reason to
discard the defence evidence. In this case, the prosecution
evidence and the defence evidence will have to be treated
equally. The cross-examination of the defence witnesses has
not really destroyed their evidence.
41. In this context, as mentioned earlier, the defence
witness DW-3 Madhuri Patil is very important who was
admittedly in the house when the incident had taken place.
Her evidence assumes more importance. She has given the
probable reason as to why the deceased had committed suicide.
The same reason is mentioned by the accused No.1 in his
answer given in the examination under Section 313 of Cr.P.C..
32 of 34
: 33 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
Therefore, to that extent the defence has probabalized its case.
42. As a result of the above discussion, we are satisfied
that the prosecution has failed to prove its case in respect of all
the charges framed against the accused beyond reasonable
doubt and, therefore, the benefit of doubt must go to the
accused.
43. Hence, the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
i. The Appeals are allowed. The judgment and order dated
13.2.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan
in Sessions Case No.171/2011 is set aside. The Appellants
are acquitted of all the charges faced by them in said trial.
ii. The Appellants i.e. Nitin Patil, Bhaskar Patil, Sarasbai
Patil and Gulabbai Patil are on bail. Their bail bonds shall
stand cancelled. The Accused No.1 Ramakant Patil is in
custody. He shall be released if not required in any other
case.
iii. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the
Appellants.
33 of 34
: 34 : 201-APEALS-260-151-14-J.odt
iv. Before his release, the accused No.1 Ramakant Patil shall
execute a PR bond under Section 437A of Cr.P.C., in the
sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty Thousand Only)
ensuring his availability in case if Appeal against the
acquittal is preferred. The other accused shall also execute
similar bonds before the trial Court. The bonds shall be
executed within a period of one month from today.
v. Criminal Appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
With disposal of the Appeals, Interim Applications, if any,
are also disposed of.
( S.M. MODAK, J.) (SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
Deshmane (PS)
PRADIPKUMAR
PRAKASHRAO
DESHMANE
34 of 34
