AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The appellants herein have challenged their conviction under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, 'IPC')
for which they have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and five years respectively and to pay fine amounts of
Rs. 1,000/Â and 3,000/Â respectively. By the impugned judgment and order, the trial Court has found that the prosecution was able to prove the
charges levelled against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt for having committed the aforesaid offences. The appellant no.1 is the husband of
deceased Kantabai, while appellant no.2 is the motherÂinÂlaw, appellant no.3 is the brotherÂinÂlaw and appellant no.4 is the wife of appellant no.3.
In the present case, the prosecution was initiated against the appellants as they were charged with being responsible for the death of said Kantabai,
who had hanged herself on a tree in a field which was about three kilometers from the house where the appellants were residing along with the
deceased. The incident had occurred on 11Â12Â2003, in the evening at about 7.50 pm. The report in respect of the incident was lodged on the next
day i.e. on 12Â12Â2003 at about 10.50 p.m, which was more than 24 hours after the dead body of Kantabai was noticed hanging on the tree. The
report was lodged by Kantabai's father, complainant (PWÂ1) and it was a typed written report. A perusal of the report shows that it was drafted in
the form of an application to the concerned Police Station.
On the basis of the said typed written report which bears the thumb impression of complainant (PWÂ1), First Information Report (FIR) was
registered against the appellants for having committed the aforesaid offences. The crux of the complaint was that the appellants had harassed the
deceased Kantabai and that she was driven to commit suicide. It was mentioned in the said report that a demand of Rs. 50,000/Â was made by
appellant no.1 (husband of deceased) for expenses towards the construction of new house that had been undertaken by appellant no.1 and that the
deceased had been harassed by the appellants in connection with the said demand. There were allegations made about the deceased having been
harassed by the appellants even prior to the said demand.
Post mortem was conducted on the body of the deceased and the report demonstrated that she had died due to asphyxia caused by hanging. It was
noticed in the post mortem report that there was no injury on the body of the deceased and that there was only one ligature mark around the neck
where fracture of thyroid cartilage was found. The Investigating Officer (PWÂ4) undertook investigation on the basis of registration of FIR against
the appellants and submitted chargeÂsheet. The appellants were charged with the aforesaid offences and they were put to trial. The prosecution
examined four witnesses in support of its case. (PWÂ1) Punjaji, was the father of deceased, (PWÂ2) Janardan, was the brother of deceased, (PWÂ‐
3) Sopan was the son of PWÂ2 and (PWÂ4) Maroti Awaghale was the Investigating Officer.
On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial Court found that there were three reasons put forth by the prosecution for
illÂtreatment and harassment allegedly meted out to deceased Kantabai. These reasons were identified by the trial Court as :(a) the deceased did not
give birth to a male child,
(b) the deceased had improper eye sight and
(c) the deceased was asked to bring Rs, 50,000/Â from her parents for putting a slab on newly constructed house.
Upon analysis of the material and evidence on record, the trial Court found that the first two reasons for illÂtreatment were not made out, but the
demand of Rs 50,000/Â and harassment in that context meted out to the deceased was clearly made out on the basis of the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses. On this basis, the trial Court concluded that the appellants had indeed inflicted cruelty upon the deceased under Section 498A
of the IPC and that they had driven her to commit suicide, making them liable under Section 306 of the IPC also. On this basis, the trial Court passed
the impugned order convicting and sentencing the appellants.
Shri R.M. Daga, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, while assailing the findings of the trial Court, submitted that there was insufficient
material on record to prove that the appellants were guilty of the offences for which they were charged. It was submitted that there was hardly any
evidence to show demand of Rs. 50,000/Â from the deceased by the appellants, as claimed by the prosecution. It was submitted that the incident took
place about 11 years after the marriage and that other than vague statements made by the prosecution witnesses there was nothing to show that there
had been any incident of harassment against the deceased during the subsistence of marriage for a long period of 11 years. It was contended that the
allegations were made only after the incident had occurred. Even in respect of alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/Â, the prosecution witnesses had failed
to bring on record any concrete evidence. It was further submitted that such a demand was made for part expenses towards the construction of
house. Therefore, it could not be said to be a demand as defined under explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC. It was further submitted that
there were material improvements made in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and a perusal of the evidence of Investigating Officer (PWÂ4)
demonstrated that the crucial evidence that supported the defence was deliberately not brought on record. On this basis, it was submitted that the
impugned judgment and order deserved to be set aside and the appellants deserved to be acquitted.
On the other hand, Shri Vishal Gangane, learned APP, submitted that the evidence and the prosecution witnesses particularly (PWÂ2) Janardan
demonstrated that the appellants had indeed made demand of Rs. 50,000/Â from Kantabai and that she was harassed in connection with the said
demand and even assaulted, driving her to commit suicide. It was submitted that the trial Court had correctly appreciated the evidence brought on
record while convicting and sentencing the appellants in the aforesaid manner. It was submitted that the appeal deserved to be dismissed.
In the present case, the FIR was registered after more than 24 hours of the incident and it was registered on the basis of a typed written complaint
which bears the thumb impression of complainant (PWÂ1). In cross examination, the said witness has clearly admitted that 4 to 5 persons of his
village were with him, they brought the typed report and they obtained his thumb impression on the same, which was then lodged with the Police
Station. Thus, the very initiation of process of registration of offence against the appellants appears to be an afterthought and the manner in which the
complaint has been drafted, shows that it was based on consultation and with an intention to implicate the appellants by filing false report after the
deceased was found hanging from a tree. The tenor of the report also suggests that it was well thought out and it does not appear to be spontaneous.
In any case, even in the said report specific allegation is only pertaining to demand of Rs. 50,000/Â just a few days before the incident. The other
allegations of harassment during the subsistence of marriage between the appellant no.1 and deceased for a long period of 11 years are vague and not
specific.
Apart from this, a perusal of the evidence of prosecution witnesses shows that PWÂ1 (father of the deceased), PWÂ2 (brother of the deceased)
and PWÂ3 (nephew of the deceased) have all made very general and vague allegations about the harassment suffered by the deceased at the hands
of the appellants during 11 years of marriage between appellant no.1 and the deceased. Even the trial Court has not believed the allegations of
harassment made against the appellants on the basis that the deceased had failed to give birth to a male child and that she had some defect in her
vision in one her eye. Therefore, only the allegation pertaining to illegal demand of Rs. 50,000/Â by the appellants from the deceased remains to be
examined. The evidence of (PWÂ1) Punjaji shows that his son (PWÂ2) Janardan informed him that the appellant no. 1 was demanding Rs. 50,000/Â‐
for construction of slab in respect of the construction of new house undertaken by him. Thus, his evidence is not direct and it is hearsay. In cross
examination this witness has conceded that he had never lodged report against the appellants in respect of alleged domestic quarrels between the
deceased and the appellants. In fact, he has admitted that till the last moment of life of the deceased, both the families were visiting each other.
(PWÂ2) Janardan (brother of the deceased) has claimed in his evidence that when he visited the deceased 4 to 5 days prior to the incident, she
had informed him that appellant no.1 was asking her to bring Rs. 50,000/Â for the aforesaid purpose. He claimed that appellant no.1 had slapped the
deceased in his presence and threatened that if the amount of Rs. 50,000/Â was not paid, the inÂlaws of the deceased would take her life. In cross
examination, this witness has admitted that he could not tell the exact month or year of illÂtreatment suffered by the deceased or when did the
deceased inform him about it. He also conceded that the construction work of new house undertaken by appellant no.1 was indeed going on. In the
cross examination, the said witness made a further claim that appellant no.1 had assaulted him for not arranging the aforesaid amount of Rs.
50,000/Â. But, he has further conceded that he has not informed his other relatives about the assault by appellant no.1. It has also come in evidence
that all the three daughters were residing with appellant no.1.
(PWÂ3) Sopan (nephew of deceased and son of PWÂ2) is also not direct witness for the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/Â made by appellant
no.1. But, he claims that on the date of incident, since he was living in the same village where the deceased and the appellants were residing, while
going to his school, he had seen at about 10.00 am that the appellants were assaulting the deceased by fist blows. He claimed to have gone to his
school and that upon returning he was informed that the deceased had hanged herself in a field. But, in cross examination this witness admitted that
his claim of having seen the appellants assaulting the deceased in the morning on the date of incident has not been recorded in the statement recorded
by the Police, thereby showing that this aspect was a clear improvement in his evidence.
PWÂ4 (Investigating Officer) has stated in his evidence that he had recorded the statement of one Vatsala, who was the cousin sister of
deceased. This Vatsala had stated that on the date of incident at about 11.00 a.m. she had met the deceased and when Vatsala asked the deceased
whether there was any message for her parents as Vatsala was to visit the village where the parents of the deceased were staying, the deceased had
stated that she should inform her parents that she was happy. This Vatsala was never brought before the Court. Apart from this, the Investigating
Officer also recorded that there was construction of new house being undertaken by the appellant no.1 and that two persons working on the site had
stated that appellant no.1 and his wife had come to the construction site on the date of incident for supply of water. But, these two persons were also
not examined by the prosecution. Therefore, it is evident that there was indeed construction of a new house undertaken by appellant no.1 and that the
deceased had also visited the said site even on the date of incident and that nothing untoward was noticed by anyone.
In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant no.1 has stated that the allegations of the prosecution
were unfounded and that there was even a property purchased in the name of deceased, showing that there was no question of harassment meted out
by the appellants to the deceased. An incident of deceased losing her temper on the eldest daughter is stated to be an incident that occurred on the
date of incident, due to which, according to the appellant no.1, the deceased was agitated.
The aforesaid evidence brought on record by the prosecutionshows that for the entire period of 11 years of marriage between appellant no.1 and
the deceased, there was no material on record to show that the deceased was made to face harassment in the context of any demand made by the
appellants. The trial Court has placed heavy reliance on the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/Â just about four days prior to the incident from the
deceased, wherein the appellant no.1 allegedly had asked the deceased to get the said amount from her parents for meeting expenses towards putting
a slab on the construction of new house undertaken by appellant no.1. It is only (PWÂ2) Janardan (brother of deceased) who claimed to be a direct
witness of the said demand. The evidence of other witnesses is clearly hearsay. But, even the evidence of (PWÂ2) Janardan about the alleged
demand of Rs. 50,000/Â from the deceased and the manner in which appellant no.1 had allegedly slapped the deceased in his presence, appears to be
an afterthought because, the same witness has further stated that he was also assaulted by appellant no.1 in the presence of deceased when such
demand was made. He admits that he did not inform such an alleged assault by appellant no.1 to any of his relatives, while PWÂ1 (father of
deceased) claims that PWÂ2 i.e his son did inform him about the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/Â by appellant no.1. There is no mention of the claim
made by PWÂ1 that the deceased and his son were assaulted by appellant no.1 while making such a demand. It is unnatural that PWÂ2 did not
inform such a serious incident involving physical assault upon himself and his sister to his father. This coupled with the fact that the report in the
present case in a typed written form was submitted to the Police beyond 24 hours creates a serious doubt about the prosecution story and it appears
that the allegations were made by the prosecution witnesses only as an afterthought. It is significant to note that PWÂ1 has admitted in the cross
examination that the typed written report was brought by 4 to 5 persons of his village upon which they obtained his thumb impression and then it was
lodged in the police Station. This clearly shows that the initial report was itself not on the instructions of PWÂ1 (complainant) and that therefore, a
serious doubt is created about the very initiation of investigation and the prosecution lodged against the appellants.
The trial Court has held against the appellants only on the basis of the aforesaid alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/Â for meeting expenses towards
putting a slab on the construction of the new house undertaken by appellant no.1. Even if, such a demand is said to have been made by appellant no.1,
there is nothing to show that the other appellants had anything to do with the same. An examination of the purpose for which the alleged demand was
made shows that it could not be termed as an unnatural demand. It does happen that when projects like construction of new house etc. are undertaken
by a family, due to financial crisis, persons in situations like the appellants do seek certain amounts from their relatives and friends. Such a demand per
se would not qualify to be an unlawful demand as defined under explanation (b) to Section 498A of the IPC, particularly when in the present case
there is lack of evidence to show any harassment of the deceased at the hands of the appellants in connection with such a demand. It is also apparent
from the evidence on record that such a demand, even if accepted to be true, was only a solitary demand made by appellant no.1. In this connection,
learned Counsel appearing for the appellants is justified in relying upon a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Santosh s/o Jairam Phusande vs
State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2004) where, in similar circumstances, this Court has held as follows: Â
“19. Further, in the first information report and even from the evidence, demand for Rs. 10,000/ was a solitary demand and even according to the
witnesses, it was for household purposes “?kjxqrh dkj.kkdfjrkâ€. In my view, if the husband is pleading with his inÂlaws for extending some
financial help, it will be rather difficult to term it as an unlawful demand, as mentioned in the definition of 'cruelty'.â€
Applying the said position of law to the present case, it becomes evident that even appellant no.1 cannot be held liable under Section 498A of the
IPC in the present case.
In respect of the charge under Section 306 of IPC, as observed above, there is no evidence at all to show that the deceased was made to face
harassment by the appellants during her married life of 11 years with the appellant no.1. The allegations made by the prosecution witnesses are
absolutely vague and there is no specific incident of harassment pointed out in the said evidence and admittedly, there is not a single complaint made in
respect of such alleged harassment during the entire period of 11 years of married life. In fact, PWÂ1 (father of deceased) has admitted in cross
examination that it was true that till the last moment of life of the deceased both the families were visiting each other. This shows that there could not
have been such normal state of affairs of relationship between the families, if there had been incidents of repeated harassment and domestic quarrels
involving appellants, as claimed by the prosecution. Therefore, there is no material on record to show that the appellants had driven the deceased to
hang herself on the date of the incident. The trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence and material on record in the correct perspective while
rendering findings against the appellants and convicting and sentencing them in the aforesaid manner.
In the light of the above, the instant appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the trial Court is quashed and set aside. The
appellants are acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Consequently, the bail bonds of the appellants shall stand cancelled.