1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 124 OF 1998 Dilip s/o. Vishwambhar Dalvi, Age 24 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Kamtha, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra Through Ramchandra Tuljaram Deshmukh, Age 48 yrs., Occu. Agril., R/o. Kamtha, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist. Osmanabad. ....Respondent. Shri. S.S. Pawar, Advocate for the appellant. Shri. B.V. Wagh , A.P.P. for the respondent/State. CORAM : P.R. BORKAR, J. DATE : 20th January, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal filed by the original accused No. 1, who is convicted of the offence punishable under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 one year and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rs. one thousand) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 57/1995 decided on 1.4.1998. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the present appeal are stated below :- Deceased Bhagyashri married appellant four years prior to 23.10.1993. P.W. 1 Ramchandra and P.W. 4 Kevlabai were her parents. Both appellant and P.W. 1 Ramchandra were residing at the same village i.e. at Kamtha, Tal. Tuljapur. For first one and half year, Bhagyashri was treated well. Thereafter, there was abusing and beating at the hands of in-laws to Bhagyashri. Ultimately, after about 6 months of illtreatment, she was taken towards her parental house and was left there. Bhagyashri complained that for getting ornaments for herself and for her husband, her mother in law picked up quarrels and the appellant used to beat her. P.W. 1 Ramchandra stated in his complaint that for 5-6 months Bhagyashri had resided at his house. During that period, appellant used to abuse him for not sending Bhagyashri. Thereafter, at the intervention of some persons, Bhagyashri was taken to the house of appellant and she started living with 3 the appellant. 3. It is further prosecution case that thereafter, the appellant wanted a piece of land from the agricultural land belonging to P.W. 1 Ramchandra for digging a well, so that he could dig a well, lay pipeline and take water to his land. However, P.W. 1 Ramchandra was not agreeable and therefore, there were always quarrels. It is said that even Saries given by P.W. 1 Ramchandra were not allowed to be used by Bhagyashri. She was always using old tattered Saries. On 23.10.1993 at about 7.00 a.m. Ramchandra was informed by the appellant and others that Bhayashri was missing from earlier night and thereafter, P.W. 1 Ramchandra and his brother Narayan inquired about Bhagyashri. Ultimately, they went to police station and at that time, a message was received that the dead body of Bhagyashri was found floating in the well of original accused No. 2. Thereafter, police along with complainant Ramchandra went towards the well. Dead body was taken out and thereafter, P.W. 1 Ramchandra lodged complaint against the appellant and members of his family. Crime was registered against the accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 4 498-A, 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. Subsequently, chargesheet was sent. The accused were charged for committing the offences punishable under sections 498-A read with 34, 304-B read with 34 and 306 read with 34 of I.P.C. 4. Seven witnesses were examined and relying on their evidence, the order of conviction and sentence was passed by the trial Court against the appellant only for having committed the offence punishable under section 498-A of I.P.C. Other accused persons were acquitted. The appellant was also acquitted for the offences punishable under sections 304-B, 306 both read with 34 of I.P.C. The conviction of appellant under section 498-A is challenged in this appeal. 5. In this case, prosecution has examined in all five witnesses on the question of illtreatment. The evidence of P.W. 1 Ramchandra is at Exh. 65 and he stated that for first one and half year Bhagyashri was treated well and thereafter, illtreatment was started. Bhagyashri was asked to bring gold from her parents. She was, therefore, sent to his house. Bhagyashri resided at his house for the period of three months. 5 Thereafter, in view of decision taken in the meeting of four persons, Bhagyashri was sent to the house of appellant. It is further stated that thereafter, appellant started demanding piece of land for digging well and laying pipeline. P.W. 1 Ramchandra was not ready. It was say of the appellant that since the land of P.W. 1 Ramchandra was adjoining to percolation tank, there was possibility of getting water. Thereafter, on 23.10.1993 he learnt that Bhagyashri was missing and they went to police station and message was received there that Bhagyashri was floating in the water of well of accused. P.W. 1 Ramchandra has proved his complaint at Exh. 66, which is reproduced earlier. Omissions were brought on record in cross-examination that in complaint it is not mentioned that it was the accused No. 2, who demanded gold. In cross-examination, P.W. 1 Ramchandra admitted that Bhagyashri had fallen in the well accidentally by slipping foot. The evidence of P.W. 1 Ramchandra is consistent with the complaint. 6. P.W. 4 Kevalabai is the mother of Bhagyashri and she has also spoken similarly. She stated that Bhagyashri was not provided proper food, clothing and 6 was illtreated by the accused persons. Even though, we ignore the evidence of P.W. 1 Ramchandra and P.W. 4 Kevalabai, as that of interested persons being close relatives, still there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W. 2 Sakharam Kumbhar, P.W. 3 Dyandeo Mali and P.W. 5 Malhari Kshirsagar. These are the persons from the same village and they are having no reason to depose falsely against the appellant. 7. P.W. 2 Sakharam Kumbhar, in his deposition, stated that Bhagyashri was not given proper food and clothing. He was adjoining neighbour of accused persons. He stated that accused were always quarreling with Bhagyashri. She was asked to bring ornaments. The accused persons demanded portion of land of father of Bhagyashri for digging well. On a day prior to the incident, Bhagyashri had met him on the road and she had shown stale bread, not suitable for eating, given to her and on the very next day Bhagyashri reported missing and her dead body was found in the well. It is suggested in the cross-examination that house of this witness is at the distance of 100 ft. from the house of accused persons and it is not an audible distance. But, when there was quarrel and abusing, they are 7 always in loud tone and 100 ft. is not a big distance. It is brought in his cross-examination that witness has not stated specific name of accused or that Bhagyashri was asked to bring ornaments or that she showed him stale bread. In my opinion, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness and he has no reason to involve the accused falsely. 8. P.W. 3 Dyandeo Mali is also adjoining neighbour of accused persons and he also stated that after initial good treatment for one and half year, accused Nos. 1 and 8, who were respectively husband and mother-in-law of Bhagyashri, used to beat her. On one day, there was quarrel between Bhagyashri and her mother-in-law. He intervened in that quarrel. He told them not to quarrel and thereafter, Bhagyashri was sent to her parental house. Thereafter, she was brought to the house of accused after reconciliation. He further stated that on 22.10.1993, there was quarrel between Bhagyashri and her mother-in-law. She was beating Bhagyashri. Bhagyashri was given stale bread which was taken by Bhagyashri and she went to field and from that evening, Bhagyashri was missing. He also stated that accused had demanded some portion 8 of land to P.W. 1 Ramchandra for digging a well. It is suggested that this witness has some matters pending in Tuljapur Court and complainant P.W. 1 Ramchandra was helping him, but there is no evidence on record to substantiate the said suggestion. It is argued before this Court that this witness could not tell the exact day, date or month. But, hardly, we cannot expect such things to be remembered i.e. day and date by the villagers. 9. P.W. 5 Malhari Kshirsagar stated that his house was on the way of the accused to go there field and Bhagyashri was initially treated well. But, thereafter, she was beaten. She was not given food and clothing. Even hair oil was also not given to Bhagyashri. She used to complain to him while going towards her field and back to her house. He specifically told that Bhagyashri told him about beating to her. He had also seen the appellant beating Bhagyashri and he intervened and rescued. Absolutely, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of this witness. If Bhagyashri was happy with the appellant and members of his family, P.W. 1 Ramchandra would not have lodged the complaint nor these independent 9 witnesses, who are also neighbours of appellant, would have deposed as above. 10. In my considered opinion, this is not a case wherein interference with the order of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is warranted and the appeal must fail. Hence, the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad in Sessions Case No. 57/1995 is confirmed. The accused to surrender to his bail to undergo the remaining sentence forthwith. [ P.R. BORKAR, J. ] ssc/criapl124.98