Bombay High Court
State Of Maha vs Pradeep Shankarrao Paratkar on 25 September, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:26360-DB
(1)
criappeal-560.2003.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.560 OF 2003
The State of Maharashtra
Through Police Station, Sindkhed,
Tal. Mahagaon, District Nanded Appellant
Versus
Pradeep Shankarrao Paratkar
Age : 22 yrs, occ : agri.,
R/o Saifal, Taluka Mahur,
District Nanded Respondent
...
Mr. A.V. Lavte, A.P.P. for the appellant-State.
Ms. Rekha Mohale, Advocate holding for Mrs. S.S. Choudhari,
Advocate for the respondent.
...
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
MEHROZ K. PATHAN, JJ.
Reserved on : 24.09.2025
Pronounced on: 25.09.2025
JUDGMENT (Per Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. The appellant State has preferred this appeal
against the acquittal only to the extent of respondent Pradeep
i.e. the original accused No.1 in Sessions Case No. 63 of 2011.
He is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302
of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "I.P.C.").
criappeal-560.2003.odt
2. As per the prosecution case, victim Chanda was
legally wedded wife of respondent and their marriage took
place on 09.05.1999 i.e. two years prior to the incident.
Chanda died due to poisoning on 12.02.2001. After her
death, her mother Dagdubai i.e. the informant and also PW-1
lodged report against the respondent Pradeep and his mother
Kausalyabai, brother Ramesh and wife of Ramesh by name
Shobha alleging that all of them harassed Chanda on account
of bringing amount of Rs. 10,000/- for starting a shop and on
non-fulfillment of the same, she was subjected to mental and
physical cruelty. Dagdubai also claimed that when they
received information about Chanda's death due to poisoning,
they immediately rushed to the hospital and there they
noticed marks of violence in form of injuries on her person.
Accordingly, on the complaint of Dagdubai Crime No.13/2001
was registered against all the accused for the offence
punishable under Section 302 and 498-A read with Section
34 of I.P.C.
3. Learned Sessions Judge, Nanded i.e. learned trial
Judge conducted trial and thereby acquitted all the accused
of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of I.P.C.
However, respondent Pradeep was convicted for the offence
criappeal-560.2003.odt
punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. and sentenced to
suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of
Rs.500/- with default clause. It appears that respondent was
was in jail since 13.02.2001, and therefore, on the day of
pronouncement of impugned judgment i.e. on 10.04.2003, he
must have undergone the awarded punishment of
imprisonment. Thus, the present appeal is only in respect of
acquittal of respondent i.e. original accused No.1 for the
offence punishable under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
4. Learned A.P.P. vehemently argued that death of
Chanda was unnatural since she died due to poisoning.
Further, it was alleged by the informant as well as grand-
father of deceased that when they went to see Chanda in the
hospital, they observed marks of violence on her body in form
of injuries to her left cheek, right side hip joint and blood was
also oozing from her nose. As such, learned A.P.P. submits
that all the accused must have harassed Chanda mentally
and physically and respondent Pradeep administered poison
to her. As such, he prayed for reversal of acquittal of
respondent/accused.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the
respondent/accused supported the impugned judgment and
criappeal-560.2003.odt
contended that there is no evidence against the respondent of
causing any sort of beating to Chanda just before her death.
Moreover, the circumstances indicate that Chanda had in fact
committed suicide by consuming poison. As such, she prayed
for dismissal of appeal.
6. Heard rival submissions. Also perused the record
and proceeding of the sessions case alongwith the impugned
judgment.
7. Though the appeal is filed for challenging acquittal
of the respondent from the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C.
but it is significant to note that he has been convicted for the
offence punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C. for which he
appears to have undergone the imprisonment of two years
awarded to him. Further, the other accused are also
acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. Under such
circumstances, question before us is as to whether the
respondent had administered poison to victim Chanda and
committed her murder.
8. The prosecution, in support of the charge levelled
against the respondent under Section 302 of I.P.C., has
examined only four witnesses. Since the death of Chanda
criappeal-560.2003.odt
due to poisoning is not disputed, the inquest panchnama,
postmortem report, seizure of tin of insecticide, are not
disputed by the defence. Prosecution has claimed that
Chanda died due to homicidal death mainly on the ground
that when PW-1 Dagdubai and PW-3 Narayan i.e. grand-
father of deceased Chanda noticed injury marks on the
person of Chanda, and therefore, they must have felt that
respondent had administered poison to Chanda. However,
though these witnesses have stated about noticing injuries on
the person of deceased Chanda, but the postmortem report at
Exh.52 on record which is admitted by defence, does not
show presence of any external injury on the body of Chanda.
On the contrary, column No.17 of postmortem report (Exh.52)
indicates that there were no external injuries found on the
person of deceased Chanda. Further, inquest panchnama
(Exh.45) also does not disclose any injuries on the person of
deceased as stated by PW-1 Dagudbai and PW-3 Narayan.
F.I.R. (Exh.32) lodged by PW-1 Dagdubai itself indicated that
she received the information that Chanda had consumed
poison and she was serious In this background it can safely
be inferred that Chanda must have committed suicide by
consuming poison having been fed up of the ill-treatment at
the hands of respondent Pradeep i.e. her husband. There is
criappeal-560.2003.odt
absolutely no evidence on record to show that respondent had
administered poison to her.
9. After going through the entire judgment, it
appears that learned trial Judge has correctly appreciated the
evidence on record and acquitted the respondent/accused
from the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. As such, we do
not find any merit in the appeal and accordingly it stands
dismissed.
(MEHROZ K. PATHAN) (SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE)
JUDGE JUDGE
VD_Dhirde
