IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPEALLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.830 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.830 OF 2006 APPEAL NO.830 OF 2006 Shri Sopan Tukaram Malusare & Anr. .. Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Shri Prakash Naikh with Mr.Ganesh Bhujbal and Mr.Pavan Mali i/by Mr.Ashok Misal for the appellant. Ms.A.T.Jhaveri, A.P.P for the respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. : A.S.OKA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 29th January 2009. : 29th January 2009. : 29th January 2009. ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT: . The submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties were heard on the earlier date. The appellants have taken an exception to judgment and order dated 04th September 2006 passed by the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune. By the said judgment and order, the appellants (accused nos.1 and 3) were convicted for the offences punishable under section 498-A and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. For offence under section 498-A the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-. For offence under section 304-B the appellants were sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years. (2) 2. The case of the prosecution is that the marriage between the 2nd appellant (3rd accused) and deceased Surekha was performed on 23rd July 2003. The 1st accused (1st appellant) is the father-in-law of the deceased. The 2nd accused is the mother-in-law of the deceased. The accused no.4 is the sister-in-law of the deceased and accused no.5 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The case of the prosecution is that at the time of marriage it was agreed that the amount of Rs.60,000/- and gold weighing 5 tolas shall be given as a dowry. Out of the amount of Rs.60,000/-, a sum of Rs.45,000/- was paid by the father of the deceased alongwith gold weighing 5 tolas. However, a sum of Rs.15,000/- remained to be paid and it was agreed that the same would be paid afterwards. 3. The case of the prosecution is that three to four months after marriage the accused started asking the deceased to bring balance amount of Rs.15,000/-. A demand was also made for additional amount of Rs.35,000/- for the purchase of a jeep and on that count, the accused were abusing the deceased and subjecting her to cruelty. The allegations are regarding beating the deceased, threatening her, starving her etc. The deceased used to complain about such behaviour on the part of the accused whenever she (3) used to visit the house of her parents. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that at the time of Diwali festival, the father of deceased offered a gold ring weighing 5 gms to the 2nd appellant but he refused to accept it. Thereafter the father of the deceased again offered gold ring weighing 1 tola to the 3rd accused. The 1st appellant was insisting that if amount of Rs.15,000/- was not paid, a writing should be executed by the father of the deceased on stamp paper of Rs.200/-. The case of the prosecution is that as the father of the deceased declined to execute the writing, the harassment of the deceased at the hands of the accused increased. Two or three days prior to the incident, the father of the deceased had been to the house of the accused. At that time he found that the deceased was nervous. At that time father-in-law of the deceased made demand of Rs.15,000/- from him. 5. The incident took place on 02nd January 2005. In the evening, the 2nd appellant, husband of the deceased informed the father of the deceased that the deceased was not traceable. The 1st appellant lodged a missing complaint on the same day. The dead body of the deceased was found floating in the well in the field of the accused. The father of the deceased lodged (4) complaint on the next day. 6. The prosecution led oral evidence as well as documentary evidence. The first witness examined by the prosecution is Vitthal Narayan Ramgude, the father of the deceased. He deposed that the 2nd appellant (3rd accused) was working as a jeep driver and was also doing agricultural work. He stated that at the time of marriage, the accused demanded and he agreed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/-. He also agreed to provide a gold ring of 5 tolas to him. He stated that he paid a sum of Rs.45,000/- in cash at the time of marriage and also handed over 4 tolas of gold to the 1st appellant. He assured the accused that the remaining amount and remaining quantity of gold will be given afterwards. He deposed that for first two or three months everything was smooth. After two or three months the deceased visited his house alongwith her sister-in-law Swati. The visit was in May 2004. During her stay she informed him that she has been subjected to ill-treatment by the accused. She informed the witness that the accused were demanding not only the balance dowry amount of Rs.15,000/- and one tola gold but also an amount of Rs.35,000/- for purchasing a jeep. The witness stated that he could not afford to pay that much amount. At that time the deceased disclosed to him that the accused (5) were ill-treating her by starving and were beating and abusing her. She was threatened by the accused that if the amount was not brought they would leave her. 7. He stated that at the time of Diwali festival of 2004, he offered a gold ring weighing 1 tola to the 2nd appellant. His version is that during Diwali festival his son Nilesh visited the matrimonial home of the deceased for bringing the deceased to his house. However, the accused did not allow the deceased to accompany him on the ground that sum of Rs.15,000/- was not paid. 8. After about 8 to 15 days from the said incident, the father of the deceased visited the matrimonial home of the deceased. At that time a demand was made by the 1st appellant of the balance amount. The 1st appellant stated that if the witness was unable to pay the balance amount, he should give a writing on a stamp paper of Rs.200/- and thereafter take the deceased with him. As he was unable to pay and had expressed his inability to give any writing, the accused did not allow the deceased to accompany her father. According to the witness he visited the matrimonial home of the deceased on 29th December 2004 on his way back from Narayanpur. He noticed that his daughter was very nervous. At that (6) time the 1st appellant again demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- and again called upon him to execute a writing on stamp paper of Rs.200/-. 9. He stated that on 02nd January 2005 he received a phone call from the 2nd appellant informing him that the deceased had left the matrimonial home. The witness stated that he alongwith his wife and son proceeded to village Nigade where the matrimonial home of the deceased was located. After reaching the place he was told that his daughter had fallen in a well and her chappals (footwear) were besides the well. The well was in the field of the accused. Dead body of the deceased was taken out from the well. He lodged complaint on 03rd January 2005. He was cross-examined by the advocate for the accused. In the cross-examination he admitted that the well in question is about 20 to 25 minutes walking distance from the house of the accused and in front of the well there is a land of the accused. He stated that a motor pump is installed on well and the accused irrigated their land by using water from the well. He denied correctness of various suggestions put to him. He admitted that his daughter was having white patches of lucoderma and she was under treatment. He admitted that his daughter had developed some skin disease and was taking treatment for the same. He (7) admitted that his daughter used to work in field apart from doing household work. He admitted that after finishing the work at home in the morning she used to go to the field for work. He, however, denied the suggestion that on the relevant day his daughter had gone to fetch the water and she fell down as her leg slipped. 10. The second witness examined by the prosecution is Nilesh Ramgude, the brother of the deceased. He also deposed regarding the agreement to pay dowry of Rs.60,000/- in cash and gold weighing 5 tolas. He stated that while paying the sum of Rs.45,000/- at the time of marriage and providing gold weighing 4 tolas at that time, the accused was informed that the balance amount and balance quantity of gold will be given after Diwali. He stated that for a period of two or three months after the marriage his sister was treated properly. Thereafter, the accused started demanding balance amount of Rs.15,000/-. Thereafter, the accused started demanding Rs.35,000/- for purchasing a jeep. He stated that they used to scold and insult the deceased. He stated that as the deceased had developed white spots on her skin, the accused used to call her as unlucky. He stated that his family could not afford to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/-. (8) 11. Thereafter, he referred to an incident which took place six or seven months after marriage. He stated that the sister-in-law of the deceased (accused no.4) stated that the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.35,000/- for purchasing a jeep should be paid. The witness stated that his family was unable to pay the said amount and therefore the accused were ill-treating her sister by taunting and starving her and by getting excess work done from her. He stated that though her legs were infected and she had suffered a burn injury on her hand, she did not take medical treatment. Then he disclosed as to what transpired at the time of Diwali when gold ring weighing 5 gms was not accepted by the 2nd appellant. He stated that at the time of Diwali the appellants demanded a sum of Rs.15,000/- as well as Rs.35,000/- and called upon him to execute a writing on stamp paper. He stated that the said two accused stated that unless writing was given, the deceased would not be sent to her parents’ home. He stated that ten to fifteen days after Diwali he visited the matrimonial home of his sister and he noticed that the sister was unhappy and at that time she complained of the ill-treatment by the accused. Thereafter he disclosed as to how dead body was found in the well. In the cross examination he admitted that the accused was (9) having a jeep. He admitted that his sister was suffering from skin disease. He stated that the deceased was educated upto 12th standard. 12. P.W.3 is one Bebi Chandanshiv. She stated that deceased was her sister’s daughter. She also stated about the agreement to pay dowry of Rs.60,000/- and gold weighing 5 tolas. She stated that she was aware that out of the agreed amount, a sum of Rs.15,000/- was not paid. Nothing turns on evidence of this witness. 13. P.W.4 Dr.Arun Bulande is the medical officer who conducted post mortem. He deposed as to the cause of death. P.W.5 Sanjay Ghadge was at the relevant time a constable attached to Kikwi Outpost, Bhor police station at Pune. He proved the complaint registered at the instance of the P.W.1 Vitthal. 14. The appellants examined defence witness by the name Vasant Gade. He stated that he was having a land adjoining the land on which the well in question is situated. He stated that the said well is square in shape and is always full with water. He stated that said well is having no steps. He stated that a footpath is passing by the side of the well. He stated that he was having a close acquaintance with the accused as the (10) accused are his neighbours. He stated that deceased Surekha was good friend of his wife and deceased used to talk to his wife. He stated that whenever father of deceased used to visit matrimonial home of the deceased, he used to visit his residence. He stated that he was present at the time of meeting held at the time of marriage and at that time there was no talk of giving and taking money. He stated that on the date of the incident there was engagement ceremony of the daughter of one of villagers. He stated that accused also attended the said ceremony but the deceased was not seen. When his wife enquired with the accused, she was told that deceased had gone to the field for sowing operation and that she will come afterwards. By the time he came back at 4.00 p.m, the deceased had not come back. He stated that when he alongwith the 1st appellant proceeded to search the deceased, they found one footwear, one soap and one scrubber lying near the well and there was a bundle of grass alongwith empty pot of water. He stated that they realised that something untoward has happened and therefore he took the 1st appellant to the police station. He was extensively cross examined by the prosecution. 15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has taken me through the notes of evidence. He (11) submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the demand by the accused and alleged harassment to the deceased are very vague and inconsistent. He also invited my attention to the panchnama of the scene of the offence. He submitted that the case regarding demand of Rs.35,000/- by the accused for purchasing a jeep is obviously false as P.W.2 Nilesh admitted that the accused was already having a jeep. He also invited my attention to the post mortem notes. He pointed out that the post mortem notes record that the death had taken place within four to six hours after last meals. The submission is that even the said fact coupled with admission of P.W.1 that the deceased used to regularly work in the field of the accused supports the case of accidental fall in the well. He also invited my attention to the evidence of the only defence witness. He submitted that none of the ingredients of both the offences were established by the prosecution. He placed reliance on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kaliyaperumal & Anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2003 ALL MR (Cri) 2398 (S.C.)). Inviting my attention to section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, he submitted that the presumption can be raised only on proof of existence of various ingredients. He submitted that in any event the prosecution has to establish that cruelty or harassment contemplated by (12) section 113-B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, was soon before her death. 16. The learned A.P.P also invited my attention to the material part of the evidence and stated that as far as evidence on the aspect of cruelty is concerned, there is no serious challenge in the cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. He submitted that section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 was applicable. He submitted that the said presumption has not been rebutted. His submission is that all the ingredients of section 304-B have been satisfied. 17. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants by way of rejoinder submitted that it cannot be said that death has been caused otherwise than in the normal circumstances. 18. I have carefully considered the submissions and also perused notes of evidence and other documents on record. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. In paragraph 3 of his evidence he has stated thus: "3. At the time of marriage the accused had (13) demanded and we had agreed to give Rs.60,000/- and 5 tolas of gold to them. Out of that at the time of marriage we had paid Rs.45,000/- cash and 4 tolas gold to accused no.1-Sopan and had assured that the remaining balance of Rs.15,000/- cash and one tola will be given afterwards. After marriage Surekha had been to the house of Nigade for cohabitation. For about 2-3 months everything was alright. ....." As far as this aspect is concerned, the version of P.W.2 Nilesh is consistent with the version of P.W.1 Vitthal. P.W.3 Bebi Chandansiv has also deposed about the agreement prior to the marriage under which the father of the deceased agreed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- and gold weighing 5 tolas by way of dowry. The defence witness examined by the appellants stated that he attended meeting for fixing the marriage but there was no talk about giving and taking money. As far as the arrangement reached between the parties at the time of marriage is concerned, the evidence of the three prosecution witnesses is very consistent which has not been shaken in the cross examination. 19. P.W.1 Vitthal stated that during her first visit (14) to his house after marriage when the deceased was accompanied by her sister-in-law Swati, she stated that the accused were ill-treating her on account of non payment of a sum of Rs.15,000/- remaining balance. She stated that total amount of Rs.50,000/- was demanded by the accused. This is the first incident of demand brought on record by the prosecution after the marriage which was solemnised on 23rd July 2003. It must be noted here that in paragraph 3 of the deposition of the 1st witness examined by the prosecution, he stated that all this was disclosed by the deceased when she visited his house alongwith her sister-in-law in May 2004. In so far as P.W.2 is concerned, he has stated that two or three months after the marriage, the accused started demanding the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.35,000/- for acquiring a jeep. He stated that on this count, the accused were treating the deceased with cruelty. He further stated that six to seven months after the marriage of his sister she alongwith her sister-in-law visited his house at that time she stated that the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- towards dowry should be paid and an amount of Rs.35,000/- should be paid for purchase of a jeep. P.W.2 Nilesh has thereafter referred to first Diwali and the incident during the first Diwali of P.W.No.1 offering two rings of gold weighing 5 gms each to the 2nd appellant and 2nd (15) appellant not accepting the same. He stated that at the time of first Diwali, a demand was made by the appellants for balance amount of Rs.15,000/- and a sum of Rs.35,000/- for purchase of a jeep. In paragraph 5 of his deposition he stated that a writing was demanded from him by the accused on a stamp paper stating that the said amount will be paid and they stated that only thereafter he could take his sister to his house. He stated that he declined to give such a writing. On conjoint reading of depositions of P.W.1 Vitthal and P.W.2 Nilesh it appears that the first demand after the marriage of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.35,000/- was made two to three months after the date of marriage. The second demand of Rs.15,000/- appears to have been made in first Diwali which must be Diwali of the year 2003. Turning back to evidence of P.W.1 Vitthal , he stated that the second demand was made to his son (P.W.2 Nilesh) when he had been to the house of the accused in Diwali. He stated that eight to fifteen days after his son came back, he visited the matrimonial home of the deceased when there was a demand of balance dowry amount made by the 1st appellant and that the 1st appellant stated that if he was unable to pay the balance amount, a writing should be executed by him on stamp paper of Rs.200/-. P.W.2 Nilesh in his evidence has not deposed regarding the visit of his father to the matrimonial home of the (16) deceased eight to fifteen days after the incident which took place in Diwali. In paragraph 6 of his deposition he has stated that he narrated the incident occurred in Diwali to his father and ten to fifteen days thereafter he again visited the matrimonial home of the deceased when he saw his sister unhappy and at that time also she complained that she was ill-treated by the accused. P.W.1 Vitthal has deposed about his alleged visit to the matrimonial home of the deceased on 29th December 2004. In paragraph 6 of his deposition he has stated thus: "6. Ill-treatment to my daughter then still continued. On 29.12.2004 on my way back from Narayanpur on account of Datta Jayanti I had been to the house of accused to meet my daughter. At that time I had noticed my daughter to be very nervous and the accused Sopan had again demanded the amount of balance of Rs.15,000/- and stated that if the amount is not paid I should given in a written document of Rs.200/- else to take daughter with me. I had assured to pay the amount at that time and returned back." (17) 20. Surprisingly, the P.W.2 Nilesh in his deposition has not deposed to the incident of 29th December 2004. Again what is deposed by P.W.1 in paragraph 6 does not refer to any harassment to the deceased on account of non payment of Rs.15,000/-. In fact, he has not stated that the deceased disclosed to him during his visit on 29th December 2004 that she was being harassed for non payment of Rs.15,000/-. He has merely stated that the deceased appeared to be nervous. 21. Thus, the evidence adduced by the prosecution shows that there were two demands made, one of Rs.15,000/- and other of Rs.35,000/-. Demand of Rs.15,000/- was towards balance amount agreed to be paid by way of dowry and a sum of Rs.35,000/- was for purchasing a jeep. It was sought to be contended that the prosecution witness admitted that the accused were having a jeep. That by itself is no ground to disbelieve the version of the prosecution witness regarding the demand of Rs.35,000/-. The evidence of P.W.1 Vitthal and P.W.2 Nilesh as regards harassment given to the deceased is with reference to the period starting from two or three months after the date of marriage. The second allegation regarding demand and ill-treatment is in the first Diwali festival after the marriage. The third incident alleged is ten to fifteen (18) days after the incident of Diwali when the P.W.2 Nilesh again visited the matrimonial home of the deceased and stated that the deceased was complaining of ill-treatment. As far as allegation of the incident of 29th December 2004 is concerned, as stated earlier P.W.2 Nilesh has not stated anything about the said incident and the version of P.W.1 Vitthal is that it was the 1st appellant who demanded the sum of Rs.15,000/- to him and stated that if the amount was not paid, a writing should be given a stamp paper of Rs.200/- failing which P.W.1 will have to take his daughter with him. Here there is no reference to a demand of Rs.35,000/- or the deceased telling her father of any illtreatment on account of non payment of Rs.15,000/-. 22. As held by the Apex Court in the case of Kaliyaperumal (supra) essential ingredient of both section 113-B of the Evidence Act, 1872 and section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code is that the cruelty or harassment should be shown to have been meted out to a woman soon before her death. The Apex Court has held that existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect