((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.307 OF 1996 The State of Maharashtra Appellant versus Jalindar Balvant Mane & others Respondents Y.S.Shinde for appellant. S.B.Shetye for respondents 2 and 3. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 19th January 2009 JUDGEMENT : 1. Heard learned APP for the appellant. By this appeal against acquittal an exception is taken to the judgement and order dated 20th January 1996 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri by which the respondents-accused have been acquitted of the offence under section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Sunanda was wife of the first accused Jalindar. The second accused Usha is the second wife of the first accused. The third accused is the married sister of the first ((-2-)) accused and the fourth accused is the mother of the first accused. The marriage between the deceased and the first accused was solemnised in May 1981. The case of the prosecution is that after her marriage the deceased was residing at Narayanwadi in the house of the parents of the first accused. At the relevant time the first respondent was employed as a High School Teacher. The allegation is that while the deceased was staying at Narayanwadi for a period of two years, she was ill-treated and harassed by the third and fourth accused. It is alleged that she was ill-treated as she was not accustomed to do the work of weaving baskets. It is stated that she was not given proper food and she was beaten by the accused. She came back to her parents house. The first accused went there to bring back the deceased. At that time there was a community meeting in which the first accused tendered apology and took the deceased with him to Gunde, District Ratnagiri. It is stated that the third and fourth accused also came there to reside in the house of the first accused. It is stated that the father-in-law of the deceased was a patient of leprosy and the deceased was told to wash the clothes of the father in law and take food ((-3-)) in the dish of her father-in-law. It is alleged that in February 1995 there was marriage of sister of first accused and on the said occasion the first accused asked the deceased to bring a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her brothers. It is alleged that the deceased could not fulfill the said demand. Thereafter, the first accused went to the house of the brother of the deceased. He took the deceased and her two children with him. It is alleged that in the mean while, the first accused performed his second marriage with second accused. The incident took place on 10th October 1991 at about 8.00 a.m; when it is stated that the deceased poured the kerosene on her person and set her on fire. She was taken to the hospital at Khed but she succumbed to the injuries. The FIR was lodged on 5th October 1991. 3. The learned APP has taken me through the notes of evidence and in particular the notes of evidence of first and second prosecution witnesses who are the brothers of the deceased. He submitted that the evidence of two brothers was consistent which clearly established guilt of the accused persons beyond a reasonable ((-4-)) doubt. He submitted that the impugned judgement and order is perverse. 4. I have carefully considered the submissions. PW-1 Ashok, the brother of the deceased, stated that the marriage between the deceased and the first respondent was performed in May 1991. He stated that after the marriage, the deceased was staying in the house of the family of the first accused at Narayanwadi for a period of two years. He stated that as his deceased sister was not accustomed to weaving work of baskets, the third and fourth accused ill-treated her. She was tied to a tree and was thereafter assaulted. He stated that the deceased came to his house and narrated the entire incident of ill-treatment. Thereafter, his sister continued to stay with him. Subsequently, the first accused (first respondent) visited the village to take back the deceased. In the village, community persons were called by the PW-1 and it is stated that the accused no.1 in presence of the persons present, tendered an apology and gave an assurance that he will not give any trouble to his wife and he will take his wife to village Gunde. It is stated that ((-5-)) on this assurance he had sent his sister to Gunde. For a period of two or three months thereafter there was no complaint from his sister. It is stated that thereafter her mother-in-law and father-in-law came to reside at village Gunde and they started giving ill-treatment to her. He stated that his sister had written some letters to him and informed him about the ill-treatment given to her at village Gunde. 5. In February 1991 when the first accused’s sister was to get married, the first accused instructed the deceased to visit her father’s house and bring a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her brother. PW-1 stated that he was not in a position to give the amount and, therefore, he could not give the said amount to his sister. 6. It is his version that the first accused came to his house and stated that a last chance be given to him and he may be allowed to take the deceased with him. The allegation of PW-1 is that the deceased was not willing to go with him but when the first respondent took second child with him, out of love and affection for the child, the deceased accompanied the first ((-6-)) accused and stayed with him for one and half months. The incident occurred on 4th October 1991 which was reported to the Police by the first respondent-accused. 7. He also referred to a supplementary statement and narrated before the Court the statements made by him during the course of recording of supplementary statement. In the cross examination he expressed a doubt as to whether the first respondent had given information about the incident to the Police. 8. PW-2 is another brother of the deceased who has also referred to the assurances given by the first respondent given in the meeting of the community. According to his version the first respondent told his deceased sister that at the time of marriage, he had not taken any amount and, therefore, she should bring atleast a sum of Rs.20,000/- from her parents. PW-3 is the Panch witness who has signed the witness Panchanama. PW-4 Vishwanath Gajanan Mhatre is the investigating officer. 9. Perusal of the judgement of the learned Trial Judge shows that he has considered and ((-7-)) appreciated the oral and documentary evidence on record. The learned Judge referred to the case made out by PW-1 regarding holding of the community meeting and assurances given by the first respondent in the said meeting. However, no witness was examined out of the persons who were allegedly present at the meeting to prove what transpired in the meeting. The learned Judge has observed that no independent witness has been examined. The learned Judge found that even according to the case of PW-1 i.e. the brother of the deceased, the deceased had written certain letters informing about the ill-treatment. Admittedly, the said letters have not been produced. It is observed that though there were many persons having their houses around the spot of incident, no person residing in the vicinity had deposed before the Court. The learned Judge disbelieved the version of the prosecution that a match box was found containing in the inner garment of the deceased. The learned Judge held that the match box could not have survived if the deceased had suffered 95% burn injuries. All this has been considered by the learned Judge in the context of non applicability of section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act as the incident ((-8-)) occurred after a lapse of more than seven years from the date of marriage. 10. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, it appears to me that the view of the learned Judge that the guilt of the accused persons is not established beyond a reasonable doubt is certainly a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of evidence on record. Even if the submissions of the learned APP are accepted, at highest what can be said is that apart from the view taken by the learned Judge another view can be taken on the basis of the evidence on record. If two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused is always to be accepted. If it is found that the view taken by the learned Trial Judge is a reasonable view which could have been taken, interference cannot be made in an appeal against acquittal. 11. Hence, I pass following order : (a) There is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. ((-9-)) (A.S.OKA, J.)