AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.G. Giratkar, J.
1.The State has preferred the present appeal against the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in
Sessions Trial No. 78/2006 by which all the respondents/accused came to be acquitted for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306
read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The case of prosecution against all the respondents in short is as under :
(i)Jayshree was the daughter of Shankarrrao Raghoji Dukandar. Marriage of Jayshree was solemnized with the respondent no. 1 on 28-5-2002.
Respondent nos. 2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in- law of deceased Jayshree. Respondent nos. 4 and 5 are sister-in-laws of deceased
Jayshree.
(ii)The respondents were residing at Bramha. At the time of settlement of marriage, respondent no. 1 agreed that after marriage, he will stay with his
wife Jayshree at Ansing by making arrangement of room.
(iii)After solemnizing marriage, Jayshree went to cohabit with her husband/respondent no. 1 at Village Bramha on such promise and assurance given
by her husband to reside at Ansing after getting room. Respondent no. 1 not made any arrangement of residence at Ansing. All the respondents gave
good treatment to her for 1½ years. Jayshree begotten one female child. Thereafter respondents started ill-treating to deceased. They were
directing her to bring Rs. 50,000/- from her parents to purchase plot at Ansing.
(iv)In the year 2005, brother of Jayshree, namely, Shivraj had been to the house of the respondents at Bramha for Rakshabandhan. In his presence,
respondent no. 1 beat deceased Jayshree. On 16-4-2006, father of deceased had been to Village Rohada for a marriage. After marriage, he went to
Village Bramha. Deceased disclosed him about the harassment of her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. She told that she was beaten by her
husband. She disclosed that as he was not paying Rs. 50,000/- to purchase plot, therefore, her in-laws were harassing her. He tried to convince father-
in-law and mother-in-law and husband of Jayshree. They were not in a mood to hear him. They asked him to take Jayshree with him. So he took his
daughter at Jintur. Jayshree resided with her parents for 2½ months.
(v)On 21-6-2006, husband of Jayshree telephoned her and told her that she should come with her paternal aunt, namely, Laxmibai. He told her that if
she fail to come for cohabitation, he would commit suicide. On 23-6-2006, Jayshree came for cohabitation along with Laxmibai. On 25-6-2006,
Jayshree committed suicide. Information was given to her parents. Father-in-law of deceased informed the police about the death of deceased.
(vi)Father of deceased, P.W. 1 came to Village Bramha. He lodged report at Police Station, Ansing (Exhibit 50). Crime was registered. PSI Avghade,
P.W. 9 investigated the crime. He prepared spot panchanama, inquest panchanama etc. and sent dead body for post mortem. As per the opinion of
the Medical Officer, cause of death was due to hanging. After complete investigation, P.W. 9 filed the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate
First First Class, Washim, who in turn committed to 5 jg.apeal.203.07.odt the Court of Sessions, Washim for trial.
(vii)Charge was framed at Exhibit 33 . Same was readover and explained to the accused/respondents. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Defence appears to be of total denial.
(viii)Learned trial Court recorded statements of accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. After hearing the prosecution and
defence, learned trial Court acquitted all the accused/respondents as stated above, hence, the present appeal.
3.Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri J. Y. Ghurde for the State/appellant. He has submitted that evidence of P.W. 1, father of deceased
is well supported by P.W. 2 Shivraj Dukandar, sister of deceased Savita (P.W. 3) and independent witness Aasra. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor has submitted that there is sufficient evidence by the prosecution to prove the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B of the
Indian Penal Code. There is no dispute that deceased died within a period 7 years from the time of marriage. Death of Jayshree was unnatural. P.W.
1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 have stated about ill-treatment by the respondents. Learned trial Court not considered evidence properly and wrongly
acquitted the respondents. At last, he prayed to allow the appeal and convict the respondents for the offences charged against them.
4.Heard learned counsel Shri Daga for the respondents. He has pointed out material evidence. Learned counsel has submitted that deceased Jayshree
was hot tempered. It was decided before marriage that her husband should reside at Ansing along with deceased. Being a only son, he could not
reside at Ansing. Deceased was upset and therefore, she has committed suicide. There was no any ill-treatment or harassment as alleged against the
respondents. Learned trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence on record and rightly acquitted all the respondents. There is no merit in the appeal,
hence, liable to be dismissed.
5.Evidence of P.W. 1 itself shows that before marriage of Jayshree, her husband respondent no. 1 agreed to reside at Ansing along with his daughter
by making arrangement of room. His evidence and also evidence of other witnesses do not show that there was any demand of dowry at the time of
settlement of marriage. From the perusal of evidence of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and P.W. 4, it is clear that deceased had no grievance against any of
the respondents for a period of 1½ years. Deceased delivered a female child. Admittedly, her sister-in- laws were married and residing with their
respective husbands. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 not stated anything against accused nos. 4.and 5. General allegations are made against father-in-law and
mother-in-law saying that they were instigating respondent no. 1 to beat deceased etc.
6.As per the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, deceased was taken by P.W. 1 on 16-4-2006. She resided with them for about 2½ months.
Respondent no. 1 was insisting his wife Jayshree to return to matrimonial home. On 21-6-2006, respondent no. 1 made a phone call and requested
Jayshree to return with Laxmibai (paternal aunt of deceased). Deceased returned to Village Bramha on 23-6-2006 and thereafter she has committed
suicide on 25-6-2006. Exact reason for committing suicide not disclosed, but from overall evidence on record, it is clear that deceased was insisting her
husband to reside at Ansing. Respondent no. 1 being the only son of his parents, he wanted to continue to reside at Bramha instead of Ansing.
Respondent no. 1 was in service at Ansing. He was working as a Clerk in Maulana Aazad School at Ansing. It was natural for the only
son/respondent no. 1 to look after his old aged parents. His both sisters/respondent nos. 4 and 5 were married and residing with their respective
husbands. Therefore, expectation of parents from their only son to take care of them in their old age cannot be said to be cruelty.
7.For the first time, after the death of Jayshree, story put forth by P.W. 1 in respect of demand of Rs. 50,000/- to purchase a plot. It is pertinent to
note that real sister of P.W. 1 was residing at Bramha. If there was any such cruelty or harassment on account of demand of Rs. 50,000/-, then it was
natural for the parents of deceased to call a meeting of their relatives.
8.It appears from the evidence that there was some bickering only on the ground that the respondent no. 1 was not taking deceased to Ansing and
reside only with her.
9.There is no dispute that lastly, deceased return to matrimonial home at Bramha along with her paternal aunt Laxmibai. Laxmibai not examined by
the prosecution. P.W. 9 PSI Avghade has admitted in his cross-examination that he had recorded statement of Laxmibai Vaijnathappa Isapure and
her son Mahadeo Isapure, resident of Bramha. Both the statements not filed on record. Both witnesses also not examined by the prosecution.
10.PSI Avghade has specifically admitted in his cross- examination that both these witnesses, namely, Laxmibai and her son Mahadeo not shown any
knowledge about the harassment to Jayshree. Evidence of P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 also not material. P.W. 4 Aasra Ghuge denied portion marked 'A' of
her statement. It is proved by PSI Avghade. In her statement before police stated that there was ill-treatment to deceased from her parents side.
11.There is no evidence to show that there was demand of dowry by the respondent no. 1. This allegation stated by father and relatives of deceased
after her death. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have not stated in their evidence that they asked husband of deceased in respect of demand. Moreover, real sister
of P.W. 1 was residing at Bramha with her family. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 not stated a single word that Laxmibai disclosed anything about the harassment
of deceased in respect of demand of Rs.50,000/-. Being a real sister, it was natural conduct of 10 jg.apeal.203.07.odt Laxmibai to disclose to her
brother about the harassment of deceased, but P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 not stated so. On the other hand, evidence of PSI Avghade clearly shows
that Laxmibai and her son not disclosed anything about the harassment to deceased by any of the respondents. Therefore, it is clear that allegations in
respect of demand of Rs. 50,000/- introduced after death of Jayshree.
12.P.W. 2 admitted both the letters written by deceased. Those letters are at Exhibit 54 and 55. In both the letters, deceased not made any allegation.
One letter was addressed to P.W. 1. In the said letter, deceased not shown any harassment to her. Another letter, Exhibit 55 was addressed to
respondent no. 1 by Jayshree from her parents house. From reading of letter, Exhibit 55, it appears that she was in deep love with respondent no. 1.
Below her signature, she wrote as hot tempered wife. Admission of P.W. 1 in the cross-examination itself shows that deceased was hot tempered.
13.There may be some trivial quarrels on household work. That does not mean that there was cruelty to deceased. In the case of Shivaji Janaba Patil
and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 411, it is held by this Court that every petty bickering or disagreement cannot be
treated to be ""cruelty"". There has to be a nexus between such harassment, ill-treatment, cruelty and the death. It is further held in paragraph 11 of said
judgment as under.
“11.For bringing home the guilt in context with Section 498A or 304B of Indian Penal Code there has to be a specific evidence to show that the
bride was harassed, illtreated, treated with cruelty on number of occasions which was sufficient enough to prompt her to commit suicide. The Court
cannot afford itself to be aloof or noninformative of normal human behaviour and humanly transactions which are being transacted in day to day
routine life. There are petty quarrels or brushings or conflicts on number of counts in day to day life between a bride, her in-laws, her husband, the
sisters or the brothers of the husband. Every such petty bickering or disagreement cannot be treated to be ""cruelty"" in parlance of law in respect of
Sections 498A, 304 B of Indian Penal Code. If they are to be taken into the sweep of the provisions of these two sections, then, it would be very
difficult for the persons to survive in normal domestic life. Cruelty should be to such an extent which would make the bride fade up and to abandon the
matrimonial life by committing suicide. The harassment, illtreatment or cruelty should be of such an extent which would make her disinterested in living
in matrimonial tie or in matrimonial home and that would be sufficient enough to prompt her to commit suicide. There has to be a nexus between such
harassment, illtreatment, cruelty and the death.
14.In the present case, except the one incident stated by P.W. 2 that respondent no. 1 beat Jayshree, no other incident is stated by any of the witness
in respect of beating etc. P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 only stated that when Jayshree came to her parents house, she disclosed about the ill- treatment of
respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. P.W. 1 also not disclosed any harassment or ill-treatment by the sister-in-laws of deceased even though they are made
accused.
15.From the perusal of evidence, it is clear that prosecution has suppressed the material evidence from the Court. As per admission of PSI Avghade,
he had recorded statements of Laxmibai and her son Mahadeo who were residing at Village Bramha. Admittedly, Laxmibai is real sister of P.W. 1.
She would have disclosed before the Court real fact but prosecution not examined Laxmibai or her son. Moreover, PSI Avghade has stated in his
evidence that Laxmibai and her son not disclosed anything about harassment or ill-treatment to deceased by all the accused.
16.Prosecution has miserably failed to prove that accused persons were demanding Rs. 50,000/-and on that count beating and ill- treating deceased.
The real fact disclosed by P.W. 1 himself in his examination-in-chief. He has stated that there was an agreement before the marriage of Jayshree. At
the time of settlement of marriage, respondent no. 1 agreed to reside with his wife separately at Ansing. Admittedly, respondent no. 1 not taken
Jayshree to Ansing. Jayshree was residing in joint family, therefore, her expectation to reside separately with her husband not fulfilled.
17.As per the admission of P.W. 1 and letter, Exhibit 55, it is clear that deceased was hot tempered. Possibility cannot be ruled out that deceased
might have committed suicide because her husband not taken her to Ansing as per assurance given by him at the time of settlement of marriage.
Prosecution has not proved any of the ingredients of Section 498-A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned trial Court rightly considered all
the evidence. There is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment. Hence, we pass the following order.
ORDER
(i)The appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(ii)R & P be sent back to the trial Court.