1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.148/2007 Sudhakar s/o Bapurao Bharti, Age 46 years, Occ: Tailor, r/o. Apegaon, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT VERSUS 1. Arun s/o Shivgir Giri, Age: 23 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o. Georai Bashi, Tq. Paithan, dist. Aurangabad. 2. Shivgir s/o Rangnath Giri, Age 50 years, Occ: Agriculture, r/o Georai Bashi, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 3. Kusumbai w/o Shivgir Giri, Age: 45 years, Occ: Household, and Agriculture, r/o as above. 4. Anil s/o Shivgir Giri, Age: 20 years Occ: Agriculture r/o As above. 5. Chandrakant @ Kantrao Bhagwan Giri, Age: 42 years, Occ: Labour, r/o. Isarwadi, Tq. Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. 6. The State of Maharashtra through its P.S.O. Police Station, Paithan, Dist. Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS (R.1 TO 5 ARE ORI.ACCUSED) 2 Mr. D.V.Salunke,Adv., h/f Mr. B.A.Darak, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. N.L.Chaudhari, Adv., for respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr.P.M.Shinde, A.P.P., for respondent no.6. ... CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J. DT: AUGUST 14TH, 2009 ... P.C.: 1. Heard. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of Counsel for respective parties. 2. The acquittal of accused for an offense under Section 498-A, 306, 304-B read with Section 34 of IPC in Sessions Case No.59/2004, dt. 11.4.2007, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, is subject of criticism on behalf of the complainant. 3. It is a matter of record, the State has not challenged the order of acquittal. 4. Sumitra, daughter of complainant was married to Arun on 24.3.2002 while Shivgir and Kusumbai are his parents. Original accused no.4 Anil is younger brother of Arun, Chandrakant, accused no.5 is close relative of accused nos. 1 to 4. It was canvassed that, during the visits, 3 deceased Sumitra used to inform her parents about demand of Rs.20,000/- from husband or his relations. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was repeatedly demanded to enable to purchase agricultural land. 5. Since the demand was not fulfilled, there was humiliation to Sumitra and on 24.8.2003, Sumitra consumed some poisonous substance and succumbed. The complainant felt, it was mental and physical ill-treatment meted by the accused, which was unbearable for Sumitra and, consequently, she has committed suicide. It was naturally wilting of Sumitra at her young age. 6. In order to establish the charge, six witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW No.1 is the father Sudhakar, the complainant. PW No.2 is Dr. Gokulsing. He has carried post mortem on the dead body of Sumitra. PW No.3 Subhadrabai is mother of Sumitra. PW No.4 Bhagwat is the paternal uncle of Sumitra. PW No.5 Ramnath is the Police Constable, he has carried sealed bottles of viscera for analysis to the Chemical Analyst. PW No.6 Bajirao Joshi, Police Officer, carried the investigation, filed chargesheet against the accused. 7. The inquest on the dead body is at Exh. 16. Panchnama of spot is at Exh.17. Post mortem 4 notes are at Exh.20. Report of Chemical Analyzer is at Exh.21. Final cause of death is at Exh.22. 8. After statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused examined Mukta w/o Anil Giri. Mukta is close relation of the complainant, she was married to one of the accused Anil on 24.4.2003. 9. On analysing the evidence, as stated earlier, learned Judge has acquitted the accused. The scope in the revision under Section 401 of Cr.P.C. is limited. If there is clear indication of any vitiating aspect to the procedure or to the settled law or there is any glossing over by the learned Judge dealing with the matter, the interference is warranted. 10. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Vs. State of Maharashtra ( (2006) 10 SCC 681) para 13 is as under: "13. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the Courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come 5 forward to depose against another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in Court as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonize a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of the bride being away from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished." 11. The learned Judge while disbelieving or dissecting the evidence of medical practitioner about sending three bottles of viscera and Chemical Analyzer examining the two bottles thereof has discussed at length. However, I find such discussion was unwarranted. It was not a case of anything than death by poisonous substance and it did not matter whether one bottle of viscera was sent or all the three bottles of viscera were sent to the Chemical Analyzer for analysis. Ultimate cause of death was consumption of the poisonous substance Endosulfan (Thiodan). 12. The turning point in the matter, apart from the infirmities in the evidence of the complainant or infirmity in the evidence of the mother of the victim, about exact date, time of harassment or demand, is the financial status of 6 Arun and his family, as they are more sound than the financial status of the complainant. I am conscious, the greed of a human being has no limits which will not have the bearing on financial condition by itself. However, the fact remains, inspite of there being good financial position of Arun, if, indeed, there was any harassment to the deceased Sumitra, in the matrimonial home, no sane person, least the complainant or his wife would have got married Mukta, DW 1, in the same family, to Anil on 24.4.2003, after one year of the marriage of Sumitra. This indicates that there could not be any ill-treatment to Sumitra as has been tried to be coined by the complainant. In the normal human life or matrimonial arrangement, bickering or wear and tear is usual phenomena. It could not be taken to height of extremity. One of the suggestion from the defense was Arun was not liked by deceased Sumitra. This was endorsed by Muktabai. Though Muktabai has to live in the family of accused, she has also to maintain her relations with complainant and his family and, in this scenario, Muktabai's evidence is significant and probably this could be one of the cause for Sumitra to take extreme step. 13. The contention that there was intention to purchase an agricultural field by the accused was one of the cause for demanding Rs.20,000/-. 7 The investigator did not carry investigation about purchase of field by accused. He has simply kept himself with folded hands with available evidence of the complainant and of the witnesses. The learned Judge found and recorded in paragraph no.11 of the judgment that the investigating officer did not take pain to bring on record as to who was owner of the land, as to what price the land was available for sale or whether there was talk between the accused and owner of the land for purchasing the land. The learned Judge observed that, therefore, it is difficult to believe that there was a demand of Rs.20,000/- by the accused for purchasing adjacent land and for that purpose the accused ill-treated and harassed Sumitra. 14. The observation of the learned Judge, on overall evaluation of the evidence, does not require any interference. There is no perversity that could be reflected. No defect of procedure has been pointed out. There was no improper acceptance or rejection of the evidence. I do not see any merit in the revision. It is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE ... agp/148-07crra 8