- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.265/2008 The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station Officer, Police Station, Manwat Tq.Manwat Dist.Parbhani. ...Appellant.. (Org.complainant) Versus 1] Nanabhau s/o Achyutrao Ladane, age 24 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Kekar Jawala Tq.Manwat Dist.Parbhani. 2] Sunil s/o Achyutrao Ladane, age 22 yrs., occu.agri., r/o as above. 3] Triveni w/o Achyutrao Ladane, age 22 yrs., occu.household r/o as above. ...Respondents... (Org.accused) ..... Shri B.V. Wagh, APP for appellant. Shri Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for respondents/accused. ..... CORAM: P.V. HARDAS & A.V. POTDAR , JJ. DATE: 20.09.2010 - 2 - ORAL JUDGMENT (Per P.V. Hardas, J.) : 1] The State, being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents for offence punishable u/ss.498-A, 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the alternative charge u/s 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, recorded by Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge-2, Parbhani, by this appeal questions the correctness of the judgment acquitting the respondents / accused. 2] The present appeal is an unfortunate instance of Parvati meeting an unnatural death within 15 days of her marriage. The facts in brief as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus: On the basis of the complaint at Exhibit 24 lodged by PW 2 Datta, brother of deceased Parvati, PW 5 PI Bhore, who was attached to Manwat Police Station, registered Accidental Death Case No.13/2007. Accordingly, the scene of the offence – panchanama at Exhibit 18 came to be drawn and thereafter the inquest panchanama at Exhibit 17 came to be drawn. The dead body was referred to Rural Hospital at Manwat for post mortem examination. PW 1 Dr.Vikram Patil, who conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of deceased Parvati, found that deceased Parvati had sustained 100% burns and had died on account of hypo volumic shock due to 100% burns. The post mortem report is at Exhibit 16. Thereafter, offence vide Crime No.30/2007 came to be registered against the respondents / accused. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded. The husband of Parvati was referred for medical examination as it was found during his arrest that he had sustained burns. The seized property came to be referred to the - 3 - Chemical Analyser and further to the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet against the respondents came to be filed. 3] On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge vide Exhibit 7 came to be framed against the respondents for offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34, 498-A r/w 34 and 304-B r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Alternatively, a charge u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code was also framed against the respondents. The respondents denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. 4] Prosecution in support of its case examined five witnesses. The trial Court found that there was no evidence of ill-treatment, much less any evidence that deceased Parvati was ill-treated on account of failure of relatives of Parvati to meet the unlawful demand made by the respondents. The trial Court also found that there was no evidence at all to suggest that deceased Parvati had committed suicide and had not died an accidental death. The trial Court, therefore, acquitted the respondents. 5] PW 2 Datta, brother of deceased Parvati, states that marriage of Parvati was solemnized on 12.3.2007 and amount of Rs.72,500/- was settled as dowry, out of which Rs.62,500/- was paid to the accused. He states that the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid within two months of the solemnization of the marriage. He states that within two days of the marriage, his sister came to his house and informed him that accused Nanabhau was displeased. About 2 to 3 - 4 - days thereafter, Parvati on telephone informed him for sending the balance amount of Rs.10,000/- as she was being ill-treated by her husband and her mother-in-law and brother-in-law. According to PW 2, Parvati had informed him that the accused were talking in “unfair language”. The vernacular deposition of this witness indicates that Parvati had informed him that the accused were speaking to her in a taunting manner. He states that thereafter he had gone to the house of his sister and Parvati had informed him that she was being ill-treated. According to the information given by Parvati, her mother-in-law was not talking to her properly and her husband was using “unfair language” and her brother-in-law was misbehaving with her. He states that he had stayed over-night at the house of his sister and on the next day, he was awakened on hearing hue and cry and had noticed the dead body of his sister. According to him, his sister Parvati had died on account of burns. He had thereafter lodged the first information report at Exhibit 24. 6] PW 4 Satyabhama, mother of deceased Parvati, states about the dowry amount of Rs.72,500/- being agreed to be paid, out of which an amount of Rs. 62,500/- was paid. She states that Parvati had come to her house for treatment of jaundice. She then states about receiving a message about death of Parvati. In cross examination, she has admitted that prior to Parvarti conversing with Datta on telephone, Parvati had not disclosed anything about the ill-treatment to her during her first visit to their house after the marriage. - 5 - 7] Prosecution has also examined PW 3 Ramchandra, who had settled the marriage between Parvati and her husband – respondent no.1 – accused. The evidence of this witness is only in respect of payment of the dowry amount. 8] From the evidence of the prosecution, it is seen that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the elements of the offence punishable u/s 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. According to Parvati, her mother-in-law was not talking properly while her husband was using “unfair language” and her brother-in-law was misbehaving with her. In respect of misbehaviour of the brother-in-law of Parvati, PW 2 Datta doe snot elaborate acts of misbehaviour. Merely using unfair language or not talking properly would not amount to “cruelty” within the meaning of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. In order to bring home the charge u/s 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, the prosecution has not been able to establish that deceased Parvati was ill-treated on account of failure of her mother and her brother to pay the remaining or the balance amount of the dowry. The prosecution has also not led any evidence to show that soon before her death, she was ill- treated on account of failure to meet the unlawful demand alleged to have made by the accused. No evidence has been led by the prosecution for eliminating the possibility of deceased having died accidentally. Thus, there is no evidence to establish that deceased had committed suicide and that suicide was on account of abetment of the accused. In other words, the prosecution has failed to establish that deceased had committed suicide on account of ill-treatment of the accused. In that light of the matter, therefore, the trial Court had acquitted the respondents / - 6 - accused. 9] With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and upon perusal, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the trial Court is a possible view to be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. We have not noticed any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. This appeal, being devoid of any merit, is liable to be dismissed. 10] Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.265/2008 is dismissed confirming the acquittal of the respondents / accused. (A.V. Potdar , J.) (P.V. Hardas, J.) ndk/cr2091010