CA 4531/10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 4531 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra, Through Badnapur Police Station, District Jalna. ....Applicant. Versus 1. Babasaheb s/o. Trimbak Vetal, Age 40 yrs., 2. Bhagubai w/o. Trimbak Vetal, Age 50 yrs., 3. Ganesh s/o. Trimbak Vetal, Age 20 yrs., 4. Trimbak s/o. Baburao Vetal, Age 60 yrs., 5. Kum. Yogita d/o. Trimbak Vetal, Age 18 yrs., All R/o. Pirsawangi, Tq. Badnapur, Dist. Jalna. ....Respondents. Mr. D. V. Tele, A.P.P. for State/applicant. Mr. P. R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondents. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 30th March, 2011. ORDER : [ Per T.V. NALAWADE, J.] 1. This application is filed by the State Government for leave to file Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. CA 4531/10 2 9/2010, which is decided by Shri. S.L. Bhagat, Extra Joint Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. By the decision dated 8.7.2010 all the respondents are acquitted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306, 304-B and 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and for offences punishable under sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 2. The learned A.P.P. is heard at length. Record of the sessions case was called and we have perused the same. 3. The record shows that Sarangdhar Kolhe, father of deceased Nandabai, gave report to police on 18.2.2009 that Nandabai had committed suicide by consuming poison due to harassment given to her by the present respondents. In the report, he has made allegations that the respondents were asking Nandabai to bring Rs. 50,000/- for expenses of the marriage of respondent No. 5 as the marriage of respondent No. 5 was settled. He has made allegations that prior to this demand, the demand of Rs. 30,000/- was made by the respondents as they wanted to purchase a jeep. Sarangdhar contended that he had fulfilled the demand of Rs. 30,000/-. Sarangdhar has made allegations that after six months of the marriage, illtreatment was started to Nandabai for such illegal demand and Nandabai used to disclose about the illtreatment to Sarangdhar, his wife and other relatives of Sarangdhar. He contended that only due to harassment given to Nandabai by the present respondents, she committed suicide. CA 4531/10 3 4. The marriage of Nandabai had taken place with respondent No. 1 about three years prior to her death. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 are parents of accused No. 1 and respondent No. 3 is brother and respondent No. 5 is sister of respondent No. 1. 5. Before the Trial Court, prosecution examined Sarangdhar and other relatives of Sarangdhar to prove the cruelty. The defence admitted inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and post-mortem report. The viscera of dead body was sent to C.A. Office and bottle of poison was also sent to C.A. Office. Doctor has given opinion that death of Nandabai is caused due to poisoning. C.A. report shows that in the viscera "Organo- phosphorous-Insecticide Monocrotophos (Nuvacron)" was detected and the same insecticide was detected in the bottle of poison (insecticide) sent to C.A. Office. Thus, it is not disputed that Nandabai consumed the aforesaid poison and she committed suicide on 18.2.2009. 6. The Trial Court has acquitted all the accused by holding that the prosecution has failed to prove that there was illegal demand of Rs. 50,000/- and for that demand, illtreatment was given by the accused persons to Nandabai. The submissions made by A.P.P. and record show that Sarangdhar gave report to Badnapur Police, Jalna on the same day. It can be said that no particulars of illtreatment were given and no specific allegations about illtreatment were made separately against each of five CA 4531/10 4 accused persons. However, Sarangdhar and other witnesses like Nivrutti - maternal uncle of deceased, Farjana - girlfriend of deceased and Vandana - younger sister of deceased, have given evidence that the deceased used to disclose to them that there was illtreatment to her. Farjana, friend of deceased, has specifically stated that deceased had disclosed to her 15 days prior to date of incident that there was demand of Rs. 50,000/- from the accused persons, as the amount was required for marriage expenses of accused No. 5 and the marriage of accused No. 5 was settled. She has given evidence that deceased had disclosed that pursuant to the aforesaid demand, illtreatment was given to her. 7. The evidence given before the Trial Court shows that Nandabai committed suicide within seven years of the marriage and that was almost after completion of three years of the marriage by consuming poison. There is the evidence that the demand of Rs. 50,000/- was made by the accused and illtreatment was given to force the demand. This demand was made 15 days prior to date of incident and it was informed to accused that the parents of Nandabai were not in a position to fulfill the demand. The statements given under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code do not show that any explanation is given atleast by the husband about the probable reason for the suicide. When there is such evidence, the provisions of sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act can be used. There was charge for an offence punishable under section 304-B of IPC also. In view of these circumstances, we are of the CA 4531/10 5 considered opinion that it is fit case to grant leave to the State to file appeal atleast against husband/original accused No. 1. If the demand was made, the demand must have been made by the husband. If there was fault on the part of husband, who was eldest issue of accused Nos. 2 and 4, the State can be allowed to file appeal as against accused No. 1 Babasaheb Trimbak Vetal. As overtacts are not attributed to persons other than husband in this case, this Court is of the opinion that it is not desirable to grant permission to file appeal against the remaining accused. It appears that immediately after the incident, the marriage of respondent No. 5 Yogita took place. In such cases, there is generally tendency to rope in all the relatives of husband and in-laws and so the permission can be granted to file appeal only against accused No. 1. In respect of other accused, the view taken by Trial Court is a possible view and nothing can be achieved by granting leave to file appeal against them. So the following order. (1) Application as against respondent No. 1 Babasaheb Trimbak Vetal is allowed and leave is granted to the State to file appeal as against this accused only. (2) Application filed against respondent Nos. 2 to 5 stands rejected. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/ca4531.10