1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 402 OF 2008 Ashok s/o Appa Pawar, Age 30 years, Occ. Agri., r/o Kuslamb, Tal. Patoda, District Beed ..APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra ..RESPONDENT Mr N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for the appellant; Mr N.R. Shaikh, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for the respondent WITH CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.7 OF 2010 Vishnu s/o Digambar Kolhe, Age : 45 years, Occu.Kolhe, R/o Kolhewadi, Tq. Jamkhed, District - Ahmednagar ..PETITIONER (Complainant) VERSUS 1. Ashok s/o Appa Pawar, Age : 25 years, Occu.Agril., R/o Kusalam, Tq. Patoda, District Beed 2. Appa s/o Rambhau Pawar, Age : 65 years, Occu.Agril., 2 3. Rajubai w/o Appa Pawar, Age : 60 years, Occu.Agril., 4. Baidabai d/o Appa Pawar, Age : 20 years, Occu.Agri., All R/o Kusalam, Tq. Patoda, District Beed 5. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai ..RESPONDENTS Miss Sijita S. Sharathpedi, Advocate holding for Mr A.N. Nagargoje for the petitioner; Mr N.S. Ghanekar, Advocate for respondents no.1 to 4; Mr N.R. Shaikh, Asstt. Public Prosecutor for respondent no.5 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 21st September, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2008 stands convicted for an offence punishable under sections 302, 498-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for one year; R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of which to undergo further R.I. for six months and R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default 3 of which to undergo further R.I. for six months, by the Additional Sessions Judge-III, Beed, by judgment dated 29.7.2008, in Sessions Case No.85 of 2007, by this appeal questions the correctness of his conviction and sentence. Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2010 has been filed by the complainant praying therein for quashing the acquittal of original accused nos.2 to 4 and for convicting them for the offences with which they were charged. Since the appeal and the Criminal Revision Application arise against the same judgment, both the appeal and the Criminal Revision Application are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus :- P.W.7 P.I. Gaikwad, who was attached to the Patoda police station, recorded the complaint of Baliram Devram Chaudhary, a Police Patil on 3.6.2007 informing the police about finding of dead body of Rupali @ Asha which was found floating in the well near village Kusalamb. On the basis of the said report, accidental death case No.20 of 2007 came to be registered under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 3.6.2007. P.W.7 P.I. Gaikwad accordingly visited the place of the incident and removed the dead body of Rupali from the well and drew the inquest panchnama in the presence of panchas at Exh.44. Dead body of deceased Rupali was referred to the Rural Hospital, Patoda for post 4 mortem examination. The scene of the offence panchnama came to be drawn in the presence of panchas at Exh.40 and from the scene of the offence pieces of sari and a paper swab came to be seized under seizure memo at Exh.42. The report of the Police Patil is at Exh.48. Post mortem on the dead body of deceased Rupali was performed by P.W.1 Dr. Sahebrao Davre. P.W.1 Dr. Davre noticed the following external injuries :- 1. On right upper extremity, burn injury over whole extremity with blisters and exfoliative . Redness present. Blister contains jelly turgid fluid, area of burn is 9%. 2. Left upper extremity : Burn injury present over whole extrimity Blisters and exfoliative skin present. Redness present. Area of burn is 16%. 3. Chest and abdomen : Burn injury present over whole chest and abdomen except lower abdomen. Blisters, exfoliative skin. Redness present, area of burn is 16%. 4. Back : Burn injury present over back, except lower back. Blisters. Redness present, area of burn is 12%. 5 5. Abrasion over left cheek, 2 cm. long. Age more than 24 hours, margin : irregular, Object : hard and blunt. He opined that all the injuries were ante mortem injuries. The percentage of burns was 46%. He further opined that death of deceased could have been caused 12 hours prior to the post mortem examination. Viscera and pieces of skin were preserved for chemical analysis. P.W.1 Dr. Davre opined that the probable cause of death was due to neurogenic shock due to burn injuries. The post mortem report is at Exh. 34 and the provisional certificate regarding the cause of death is at Exh. 34. On 3.6.2007 father of deceased Rupali - P.W.2 Vishnu lodged his complaint at Exh.38 and on the basis of the complaint an offence punishable under section 302, 201, 498-A read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the accused vide Crime No.46 of 2007. Statements of witnesses came to be recorded and on 22.6.2007 the viscera and the skin pieces were referred to the Chemical Analyser, Aurangabad for analysis along with the requisition at Exh.49. The C.A. report is at Exh.50. On 3.6.2007 the accused nos.1 to 3 came to be arrested and accused no.4 came to be arrested on 8.6.2007. Further to the completion of investigation a charge-sheet came to be submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class at Patoda. 3. On committal of the case to Court of Sessions, charge vide Exh.17 came to be framed against the appellant and other three accused for 6 offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 302 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and alternatively a charge under section 304-B read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and 201 read with sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be framed. The accused denied their guilt and claimed to be tried. Prosecution in support of its case examined seven witnesses while the accused in their defence examined two witnesses. The Trial Court accepted the evidence of the prosecution and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated while acquitting the other accused. 4 In order to effectively deal with the submissions advanced before us by the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be useful to refer to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Prosecution has examined P.W.2 Vishnu, father of deceased Rupali, who states that Rupali was born to him from his first wife and Rupali was married to accused no.1 (appellant) Ashok at village Kusalamb. After marriage, Rupali had gone to reside at the house of the accused at village Kusalamb and was treated well up to the Dassera festival. Thereafter the accused harassed Rupali. It appears that the accused had mortgaged their land to one Prabhu Veer and, therefore, they were asking Rupali to bring Rs.1 lac from her parents for releasing the land from mortgage. Accused nos.1 to 4 were subjecting Rupali to illtreatment and they used to assault her and starve her. P.W.2 Vishnu 7 states that Rupali had come to his house and had narrated to him the instances of harassment and demand of the accused. Vishnu further states that he convinced Rupali and accordingly took Rupali to the house of his brother Dinkar and thereafter to the house of the accused. He also states that he informed the accused that he was poor and unable to fulfill their demand of Rs.1 lac and requested the accused to treat Rupali properly. He states that he returned back to his house at village Kolhewadi and after about 10 to 12 days Prabhu Veer had brought Rupali to his house and he had questioned Prabhu Veer as to why he had brought Rupali back to the house of P.W.2. Prabhu Veer informed him that it was not possible for Rupali to reside at the house of accused as there used to be quarrels and, therefore, he had brought Rupali to the house of P.W.2 Vishnu. He further stated that after the accused returned from their contractual employment with the sugar factory, the dispute would be settled. After return of the accused, P.W.2 Vishnu accompanied Rupali along with his brother Dinkar to the house of accused. He was also accompanied by P.W.6 Sojarbai. Prabhu Veer was also present at the house of the accused and P.W.2 Vishnu requested the accused to treat his daughter well and not to subject her to harassment as P.W.2 Vishnu was unable to pay Rs.1 lac. Accordingly P.W.2 Vishnu left Rupali at the house of the accused and returned back to his village. After 4 to 5 days a telephone call was received by one Subhash Rambhau Kolhe, to whom it was informed that Rupali was missing and, therefore, P.W.2 Vishnu should search for her. P.W.2 Vishnu accompanied by Dinkar, 8 Vithal, Madhukar and Sojarbai went in search of deceased Rupali. They searched for Rupali in village Kusalamb, Parner, Yawalwadi, Pimpalwadi and also searched at the houses of his relatives but no trace of Rupali was found. After 2 to 3 days, another telephone call had been received from the village of the accused and it was informed that Rupali had fallen in the well at village Kusalamb and said well was near the house of the accused. P.W.2 Vishnu accompanied by his relatives and other villagers went to the village of the accused and saw the corpse of Rupali floating on the water. He states that the police had removed the dead body of Rupali from out of the well. Face of Rupali was swollen and there were injuries on her chest and face. Post mortem on the dead body of Rupali was performed and thereafter he lodged complaint at the Patoda Police Station. 5 In cross-examination he has admitted as true that his daughter Shalan is married to Baliram Veer and Prabhu Veer and Baliram Veer are real brothers. He has stated that he does not know if accused no.1 was cultivating the agricultural land of his relatives at village Kusalamb. He has admitted that the accused are having one house and were residing there. He has also agreed as true that after marriage of Rupali accused nos.1 to 4 and Rupali were working in the agricultural land. He has also admitted as true that his daughter Rupali was cooking in the house of accused. He has also agreed that during the sugar cane cutting season the accused used to go to work for sugar cane cutting and during 5 to 6 9 months the accused used to reside away from their village. He has also agreed that for sugar cane cutting one couple earns about Rs.30,000/-. He has also agreed as true that his financial position and the financial position of the accused is the same. He has also stated that for Dussera festival Rupali had come alone to his house and had resided at his house for two days. He has denied the suggestion that a day prior to the Dussera festival Rupali had gone to village Yewalwadi without informing the accused. He has agreed as true that a day prior to the Dussera festival the accused had inquired with him whether Rupali had come to his house. He has denied the suggestion that accused no.1 and his family members had complained to him that Rupali was a simpleton. He has also agreed that accused no.1 and his mother had gone for the sugar cane cutting while the father of accused no.1 and his sister were residing at Kusalamb. He has agreed that during that period Rupali was residing with him. He has also agreed that when Prabhu Veer had brought Rupali to his house, he had told him that the accused no.1 was going for sugar cane cutting and was not ready to take Rupali along with him and, therefore, Prabhu Veer left Rupali at his house. He has denied the suggestion that Prabhu Veer had informed him that accused were complaining that Rupali was a simpleton and was of less understanding and used to leave the house of the accused without intimating the accused. He has also stated as true that on 1.6.2007 Subhash Kolhe had arrived at his house and had asked him whether Rupali had come to his house. He has also agreed as true that Subhash Kolhe had told him 10 that he had received information from people of Kusalamb that on 1.6.2007 Rupali had left the house of the accused and had not returned back. He has stated that he had not asked Prabhu Veer about the date on which the accused had mortgaged their land. He has stated as true that no discussion had taken place between him and Prabhu Veer relating to the mortgaged land. Omission has been duly pointed out at paragraph 11 of his deposition about Prabhu Veer bringing Rupali to his house and about P.W.2 Vishnu questioning Prabhu Veer as to why Rupali was brought to his house. Omission has been duly proved about Prabhu Veer telling him about quarrels in the house of the accused and it was impossible for Rupali to reside there. 6 Prosecution has examined P.W.6 Sojarbai, an aunt of deceased Rupali. P.W.6 Sojarbai states about demand of Rs.1 lac and Rupali being subjected to illtreatment on account of non payment of the said amount. Sojarbai also deposes about going in search of Rupali and finding the dead body of Rupali floating on the water of the well. In cross examination she has admitted that she had no occasion to go to the village of the accused. She could not explain as to why portion marked "A" was appearing in her statement. Omission has been duly pointed out about Prabhu Veer bringing Rupali to the house of P.W.2 Vishnu. She has also stated as true that the accused after their return from the sugar cane cutting work had complained that Rupali was a simpleton and used to leave the house without informing the family members. She has also 11 agreed as true that she and others had convinced the accused that Rupali was not a simpleton and that she would not leave the house without informing the accused and the accused should treat her properly. She has also agreed as true that the accused had promised that they would treat Rupali properly but in the event Rupali left their house without informing them the accused no.1 would not cohabit with her. She has further stated that on 3.6.2007 when they had gone to village Kusalamb the police had already arrived there. 7 The accused in their defence have examined Muktabai, who states that she knew deceased Rupali @ Ashabai and the accused. She claims to be the neighbour of the accused. She states that on 1.6.2007 she along with deceased Rupali had gone for answering the nature's call at 6.00 a.m. She had returned back to her house but Rupali did not return back. She learnt from the accused that Rupali had not returned. She states that the accused had questioned her about the whereabouts of Rupali. She claims to have informed the police also when the police had come to the village. The evidence of this witness obviously does not assist the accused. D.W.1 Muktabai had returned back and obviously has no knowledge as to whether deceased Rupali had returned back or not. At best, the evidence of this witness suggests that Rupali did not accompany her back. The evidence of this witness does not lead to an inference that Rupali had not returned at all and had gone elsewhere. The accused have also examined D.W.2 Subhash, who claims to have 12 seen D.W.1 Muktabai and deceased Muktabai going for answering the nature's call. As pointed out in case of D.W.1 Muktabai, even this witness does not assist the defence of the accused. It is quite possible for Rupali to have returned back. 8 Shri Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the appellant has urged before us that P.W.6 Sojarbai has admitted in her evidence that the accused had complained that deceased Rupali was in the habit of leaving the house of the accused without informing them and it is quite possible that deceased Rupali had not returned back after answering the nature's call and had gone else where. In fact, it is tried to be suggested that some other person may have committed murder of deceased Rupali. Deceased Rupali was missing from 1.6.2007 and her dead body was found on 3.6.2007 and during that time, some one else may have committed the murder of deceased Rupali. The learned A.P.P. has supported the judgment of the trial and has prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 9 According to us, there is no merit in the contention of the appellant. It is true that Sojarbai has admitted that the accused had complained that deceased Rupali used to leave the house of the accused without informing them. Obviously deceased Rupali was not a mentally retarded person. The reason as to why deceased Rupali was required to leave the house of the accused has also not come on record. If deceased Rupali was harassed and illtreated and in the frustration she used to leave the 13 house, an inference cannot be drawn that Rupali was a simpleton, who would leave the house of the accused and any person could lead her astray. This obviously also is not a case of suicide as deceased Rupali had died of burns and her dead body was found in the well. The fact that deceased Rupali was harassed and illtreated because of demand of Rs.1 lac has been established in the light of evidence of P.W.2 Vishnu and evidence of P.W.6 Sojarbai. As to why the accused were demanding Rs.1 lac and whether it was for satisfying the mortgage and releasing their land is a matter which can be answered by the accused alone. Failure of the prosecution to examine Prabhu Veer and prove the mortgage of the land of the accused to Prabhu Veer would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. It is not uncommon that the amount is demanded on false pretext. Deceased Rupali had died in the custody of the accused. There is no satisfactory evidence deceased Rupali had left the house of the accused and had gone else where. On account of the strained relations between the accused and deceased Rupali, according to us, chain of circumstantial evidence is complete. 10 According to us, the prosecution has been able to establish that deceased Rupali had died a homicidal death. Deceased Rupali was residing with the accused till her death. Prosecution has also been able to establish the motive i.e. illtreatment of deceased Rupali for failure to pay Rs.1 lac. Additionally, we find that the accused have not been able to explain the manner in which deceased Rupali had died and have offered 14 a false explanation. The false explanation of the accused is an additional circumstance against the accused. The three circumstances adverted to above, according to us, clearly prove the case of the prosecution against accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubt. It is accused no.1 and accused no.1 alone who has committed murder of deceased Rupali. The trial Court has given reasons for acquitting the other accused. We have perused those reasons and we do not find any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court. Deceased Rupali was wife of accused no.1 and accused no.1 has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation in respect of death of Rupali. It is obvious that Rupali was killed by setting her ablaze and thereafter the dead body of deceased Rupali was thrown in the well. The explanation that someone else may have committed murder of deceased Rupali also does not appears to us to be probable. There are no circumstances established on record on behalf of the appellant which would even remotely probablize the defence of the accused that Rupali had left their house surreptitiously and had met her death at the hands of someone else. As pointed out by us above, death of Rupali cannot be said to be either accidental or suicidal as she has died of burns and the dead body of deceased had been thrown in the well. It is obvious that the accused had made a show that deceased Rupali was missing since 1.6.2007 and had inquired with P.W.2 Vishnu as to whether Rupali had come to his house. Dead body of deceased Rupali was found floating in the well near the house of the accused on 3.6.2007. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, the prosecution has proved its 15 case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 11 Shri Ghanekar, learned Counsel for the appellant, has urged before us that the prosecution has not been able to establish the place where deceased Rupali was set ablaze. According to us, failure of the prosecution to prove and establish the place where deceased has been set ablaze would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution. Since deceased Rupali was residing with the accused and was in the custody of accused no.1 as she had been married to accused no.1, primarily it was for the accused no.1 i.e. the appellant to offer a probable explanation regarding the unnatural death of the deceased. The prosecution evidence, however, falls short of establishing any instance of cruelty soon before the death of Rupali. In such circumstances, therefore, offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code has been rightly held by the Trial Court not to have been established. Another feature of this case is that the accused had complained to P.W.2 Vishnu and P.W.6 Sojarbai that deceased Rupali was in the habit of leaving the house of the accused without intimating them and that if she did so again, accused no.1 would not cohabit with her. This is a clear indication that the appellant (accused no.1) was not intending to cohabit with deceased Rupali. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us, the prosecution has also been successful in establishing the motive for accused no.1 to have committed the crime. 16 12 Criminal Revision has been filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal of accused nos.2 to 4. The scope of Revision against acquittal is extremely limited. The State has not filed any appeal questioning their acquittal. There is no evidence whatsoever against the other accused in respect of either the illtreatment or the demand. The Trial Court has, therefore, rightly given them benefit of doubt and has acquitted them. We have perused the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquitting accused nos.2 to 4 and upon such perusal we do not find any perversity in the reasoning of the Trial Court. The Revision, therefore, filed against the acquittal of accused nos.2 to 4 also deserves to be dismissed. 13 Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.402 of 2008 is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant and Criminal Revision Application No.7 of 2010 is also dismissed confirming the acquittal of accused nos. 2 to 4. ( A.V. POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) amj/cria402.08