1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.: 1031 OF 2010 *** The State of Maharashtra Versus Ramdas Sadashiv Godge and others *** 1. We have heard learned A.P.P. Mr. Shaikh for the Applicant, Advocate Mr. Salgare, instructed by Advocate Smt. S.S.Jadhav, who appears for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. By the earlier order, notice was issued only to Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Indisputably, Respondent No.1 is father in law, Respondent No.2 is mother in law and Respondent No.3 is brother in law of deceased Manisha. 3. Respondent Nos.1 to 3, along with two other persons, were charged and tried in Sessions Case No.3 of 2008 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. All of them were charged and tried for the offence under section 498-A and 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short). The trial Court, after considering the evidence 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. on record and hearing the parties, convicted original Accused No.1 Sanjay (husband of deceased Manish) for the offence punishable under section 498-A and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for two years with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default, he was directed to undergo Simple Imprison for three months. He is also convicted by the trial Court for the offence under section 306 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation. Original Accused No.1 is acquitted for the offence punishable under section 304-B IPC. The original accused Nos.2 to 5 i.e. Ramdas, Hirabai, Suresh and Sou. Mangal are acquitted of the offence punishable under section 498-A and 304-B read with 34 IPC. This judgment has been delivered by the trial Court on 9th October, 2009. Thus, present application, we are considering against Respondent No.1 Ramdas, Respondent nO.2 Hirabai and 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Respondent No.3 Suresh. 4. We have seen the judgment of the trial Court. In paragraph NO.2, facts have been stated by the learned Judge. We list, in brief, the relevant facts - (a) Manisha (since deceased) was married to original Accused No.1 on 17th February, 2003. After the marriage, she had resumed cohabitation. (b) Mrriage of accused No.1 and deceased Manisha was a bliss for the period of two years immediately after the marriage. (c) Manisha delivered a daughter Akshada. (d) Since 2005 accused allegedly started ill-treating Manisha by making unlawful demands of money. Such demand was for construction of a poultry shed, purchase of new motorcycle for Accused No.1. (e) According to the prosecution, fifteen days prior to the incident, accused subjected deceased Manisha to ill-treatment. Reason 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. was demand of Rs.50,000/- from her parents to plaster walls of their newly constructed house and non-fulfillment of said demand. (f) We have seen the first information report, in this case, Exhibit-60. It is written report of original complainant Eknath. It is type-written report of complainant Eknath Baburao Dighe. This report bears the date as 6th of June, 2007. It has been submitted to Police Station Officer, Sangamner, Taluka Police Station, on 6th of June, 2007. Time is not endorsed by the Police Officer concerned, however, the date of receipt of the report is endorsed by the Police Station Officer. In this report, it is alleged by the complainant that on 5th of June, 2007 at 06.30 a.m. Suresh i.e. Accused NO.4 came to his house and informed him that since the intervening night of 4th of June, 2007 and 5th of June, 2007 (at around 01.00 a.m.) original Accused No.1 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Sanjay and Manisha are missing. (g) Said first information report Exhibit-60 further discloses that on 5th of June, 2007 at 08.00 a.m. Accused No.4 Suresh again visited the house of complainant and informed him that Accused No.1 Sanjay had returned to the house, however, Manisha did not return. After giving this message, accused No.4 Suresh left the house of the complainant. (h) According to the first information report Exhibit-60, on that day i.e. 5th June, 2007 complainant and his relations have searched for Manisha at probable places, however, could not get her. They had been to the in-laws of Manisha and made enquiry with father in law, mother in law, brothers in law and other family members. Evasive replies were given to the complainant by inlaws. It is specifically alleged that Sanjay, husband of Manisha, told them that earlier evening at around 9/10.00 p.m. he had assaulted Manisha. 6 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. After hearing this from the husband of Manisha, informant's suspicion became more grave and that led him to file this report Exhibit-60. Last sentence of the report reads that inlaws must have killed or done away with Manisha. (i) Exhibit-60, which we have referred to in the earlier clause, is the written report which was not treated as first information report by the police officer concerned. Exhibit-61 is the complaint or first information report. It is dated 7th June, 2010. In fact, it is the statement of Eknath Baburao Dighe informant/ complainant (father of deceased Manisha). This statement is treated as first information report under section 154 of Criminal Procedure Code by the Police Station Officer at Sangamner Taluka Police Station. Crime No.I-183 of 2007 was registered under section 304-B, 498-A, 323, 504 read with 34 of IPC. Date of 7 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. registration of this offence is 7th June, 2007 at 18.05 hours (06.00 p.m.). We have noticed that this registration of offence is under the signature of Police Station Officer concerned, duly proved and this document is exhibited at Exhibit-61. 5. Criminal law, thus, was set in motion based on the first information report Exhibit-61. It was investigated, charged sheet was filed in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, having jurisdiction over the area. The case being triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge at Sangamner, district Ahmednagar. With the assistance of learned counsel present before the Court, we have seen the charge Exhibit-40 framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangamner on 18th November, 2008. This charge was framed against original five accused persons. 8 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Charge was framed under section 498-A, 304-B read with 34 of IPC against all accused persons. Charge was explained to the accused persons, they denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6. That is how, all the accused thus were charged for the offence punishable under section 498-A, 304-B read with 34 of IPC and have been accordingly tried. We have noticed the conviction recorded by the trial Court in the foregoing paragraph. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Salgare, informed the Court that original Accused No.1 Mr. Sanjay has filed appeal against conviction and sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court. Criminal Appeal No.518 of 2009, after hearing learned counsel for the parties has been admitted by this Court. He further submitted that original Accused No.1 also filed criminal application NO.3636 of 2009 for grant of bail. It was heard by this 9 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Court and bail has been granted in favour of the original accused No.1. 8. At the out set we may record that for death of Manisha five accused persons were tried. Ultimately, trial Court recorded conviction against original accused No.1 Sanjay for the offence punishable under section 306 and 498-A IPC. On this backdrop, we have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties against present Respondents i.e. father in law, mother in law and brother in law. 9. We have seen the judgment of the trial Court from paragraph No.43 onwards. The trial Court, even though charge was not framed against original Accused No.1 under section 306 IPC, convicted him for the reasons recorded in the judgment. We are not expressing any opinion on this for the simple reason that the appeal filed by the original accused No.1 has been admitted by us and is 10 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. pending before this Court. 10. In this criminal application, we have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties in relation to present Respondents. We have considered entire material brought on record, on behalf of the prosecution. All these Respondents have been acquitted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under sections 498-A, 304-B read with 34 IPC. After giving due consideration to the submissions, in our view, the trial Court, while acquitting the present Respondents, for the offence punishable under sections 498-A and 304-B read with 34 of IPC has taken a possible and reasonable view. We do not see any perversity allegedly committed by the trial Court. In our considered view, there is no substance in this criminal application for granting leave to appeal, against the present Respondents. This, opinion, we have formed after considering 11 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. entire material brought on record independently in relation to the present Respondents. We have also considered submissions of learned A.P.P. Mr. Shaikh that on the same set of evidence accused No.1 is convicted by the trial Court for the offence punishable under section 498-A. In our view, it is settled position of law that even if one of the accused is convicted by the Court, evidence against other accused persons can be scanned independently and appropriate order can be passed by this Court. In the case on hand, apart from this, the conviction of original Accused No.1 has not attributed finality. Appeal is admitted by this Court and pending consideration. In all and all, we are not inclined to grant leave in favour of the prosecution against the present Respondents. 11. Leave to appeal, against the present Respondents stands rejected. We clarify that 12 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. these are the observations made in relation to the present Respondents and based on the material brought on record, coupled with the provisions of law concerned. Criminal Application accordingly stands rejected. No costs. [S. S. SHINDE, J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:05/08/2010. ans/1031