drp {1} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.282 OF 2009 1. Santosh s/o Baburao Bagal APPELLANTS Age-25 years, Occ-Agriculturist 2. Baburao s/o Ambadas Bagal, Age-55 years, Occ-Agriculturist 3. Kamalbai w/o Baburao Bagal, Age-45 years, Occ-Household 4. Ankush s/o Baburao Bagal, Age-20 years, Occ-Agriculturist All R/o Peth Wadgaon, Tq-Kalamnuri Dist-Hingoli VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT Through Police Station Akhada Balapur ....... Mr.R.N.Dhorde h/f Mr.Sachin Deshmukh, Advocate for appellants Mrs.R.K.Ladda, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 10th January 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. The appellants, who stand convicted for an offence punishable u/s 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and drp {2} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 sentenced to suffer RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to suffer SI for 2 months; for an offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default, to suffer SI for 6 months and for an offence punishable u/s 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to suffer SI for 6 months and all the sentences are to run concurrently, vide judgment and order dated 19.05.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, in Sessions Case No.8.2006, have questioned the legality and correctness of their conviction. 2. Such of the facts, as are necessary for the decision of this appeal, may briefly be stated thus - a) Appellant No.2, Baburao Bagal, lodged a report in Akhada Balapur police station on 25.08.2005 that his daughter in law, Sushila, had committed suicide by hanging herself with nylon rope in her bed room between 11.00 a.m. and 3.00 p.m. Accordingly, ADR No.25/2005 was registered u/s 174 of the Criminal Procedure Code. b) Investigation of the said ADR was entrusted to Subhash Bhoyar, (PW-9). During the investigation PW-9 had visited the place of the incident and had noticed that the dead body of Sushila was hanging to a wooden beem drp {3} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 of the ceiling, with a nylon rope. Spot Panchanama (Exhibit-44) was drawn in presence of Pancha witnesses. The body was removed from ceiling and inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-43) was drawn. The dead body was sent for Postmortem to primary health center, Dongarkheda, Tq-Kalamnuri, Dist-Hingoli. c) Dr.Ayesha Tabssum Sayed Hussain conducted Postmortem on 26.08.2005. During the Postmortem, the following injuries were noticed on the dead body. 1. Pressure abrasion on upper part of the neck above cardioid cartilage extending back of neck, covering mastoid region on both sides of neck. 24 cm X 2 cm. 2. Abrasion in front of neck in middle one third of 4 cm X 4 cm. According to the medical officer, the age of injuries was 12 hours prior to the postmortem and the injuries were antemortem. The cause of death, according to medical officer, was due to asphyxia due to hanging. Accordingly, Postmortem Report (Exhibit-63) was prepared. d) On 26.08.2005, Mukindrao Jairam Deshmukh, father of Sushila (deceased) lodged a complaint in Akhada Balapur police station against the appellants and Raosaheb Deshmukh and Chhaya Deshmukh (acquitted accused). On the basis of the complaint CR No.72/2005 drp {4} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 was registered against appellants and acquitted accused. e) Before conducting the postmortem, clothes on the person of the deceased were removed and were sent to police station, which were seized under seizure Panchanama (Exhibit-23) so also nylon rope was seized under Panchanama (Exhibit-59). During the investigation statements of certain witnesses, including Laxman servant of the complainant, Shripati Aute-neighbour and relatives of the deceased were recorded. The appellants were put under arrest on 27.08.2005. Thereafter the seized articles were sent to CA for chemical examination. After receipt of the CA report and on completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Kalamnuri, who in turn committed the trial to the Court of Sessions, Hingoli. f) Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli framed charge (Exhibit-14) against all the accused persons for an offence punishable u/s 498A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, u/s 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and u/s 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. During the trial, to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined total 9 witnesses, including PW-1 Laxman Dayal-servant of the complainant, drp {5} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 PW-3 Shripati Aute-neighbour, PW-7 Digambar Deshmukh-brother in law of the deceased, PW-3 Bhujan Deshmukh-brother of the deceased, PW-6 Shashikala Deshmukh-mother of the deceased, PW-2 Ganesh Deshmukh & PW-4 Sambhaji Magar-Pancha witnesses to the spot Panchanama, PW-8 Dr.Ayesha-who had conducted the Postmortem and PW-9 Subhash Bhoyer the Investigating Officer. Relying on the evidence of PW-3 to 7 coupled with the evidence of PW-8, Dr.Ayesha, the trial court convicted the appellants for an offence punishable u/s 498A r/w 34, 302 r/w 34 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them accordingly, however acquitted accused Raosaheb Deshmukh and Chhaya Deshmukh from all the charges. The said judgment is impugned in the present appeal. 3. For appreciation of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and learned APP, it is necessary to advert to the evidence of material witnesses examined by the prosecution. 4. Careful perusal of the evidence of PW-8 Dr.Ayesha, who had performed Postmortem on the dead body of Sushila and has opined that the injuries found on the person of Sushila might have been caused prior to 12 hours of the Postmortem, indicates that other than the injuries mentioned in column No.17, no drp {6} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 external injuries were noticed on the dead body, indicating physical violence to the victim just before her death or any old marks of injuries indicating physical torture to the victim in the past. Most important aspect of the injuries noted on the person of Sushila is that there is only one ligature mark over neck, which does not indicate that initially she was strangulated and and thereafter the dead body was hanged, to create scene of suicidal death. 5. It is in the evidence of Bhujan PW-5, brother of the deceased, that his sister (deceased) got married with appellant No.1 Santosh on 23.04.2004. Sushila (deceased) had visited her paternal house at the time of Deewali of 2004 and at that time, on inquiry, she had informed that the appellants were demanding / insisting for Rs.50,000/- from her to purchase a tractor and were harassing her on that count. Thereafter father of Sushila and PW-7 Digambar, had been to the house of the appellants to bring Sushila for the festival of Nagpanchami in the year 2005, however the appellants had refused to sent her on the count that Rs.50,000/- were not paid to them. On 25.08.2005 he, so also his parents, had received a telephonic message that Sushila had expired. Accordingly, he went to Peth Wadgaon and noticed that the body of his sister was hanging to a wooden rafter, however her feet were touching to the floor. According to him, his sister was killed by the appellants and thereafter, to create a scene of suicide, her body was hanged to ceiling. Complaint was lodged by his father, however, he expired during the pendency of the trial and, therefore, drp {7} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 the complaint was got proved through this witness. Certain omissions are proved in his cross examination that he has not stated in the statement before police that the appellants have killed Sushila by pressing her neck and Sushila was killed due to pressing of her moth. He has also admitted that it was his suspicion and guess that Sushila was killed by the appellants. He has further stated that he had received telephonic message at 5.00 p.m. and he reached at the house of the appellants at about 7.00 p.m. He has stated that the dead body of Sushila was in the front room and he could not get any information from local residents, however Shripati (PW-3) had told him about the incident, after two days. He has further stated that the alleged demand of Rs. 50,000/- was 5 to 6 days prior to Deewali of the year 2004. He has admitted in unequivocal terms that after Deewali of 2004, Sushila had not visited her parents house. Thereafter, he had been to the house of the appellants, however he was unable to give any details of his visits. His father had also gone to bring Sushila for the festival of Panchami along with his brother in law (PW-7). 6. Evidence of PW-6 Shashikalabai, mother of the deceased is identical with the evidence of PW-5 Bhujan. Additionally, she has stated that they received telephonic message at about 3.00 p.m. and reached at the house of the appellants around 6.00 p.m. She has also admitted that she had never visited the matrimonial house of Sushila. Certain omissions are proved in her cross examination that she has not stated in the statement drp {8} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 before police that the appellants were not providing food to Sushila and at the time of Deewali understanding was given to Sushila and that Digambar had went along with her husband to bring Sushila for the festival of Panchami. She has further admitted that she has not stated in the statement before police that they received telephonic message informing that Sushila has got herself hanged and died. 7. PW-7 Digambar, brother in law of Sushila (elder sister’s husband), has stated in the evidence that on 07.08.2005, he had been to the house of the appellants along with his father in law (Complainant) to bring Sushila for the festival of Panchami at that time the appellants had refused to sent her on account of failure of her parents to pay Rs.50,000/- to the appellants. He had assured the appellants that he would pay the said amount after sell of soyabene crop, to which the appellants had not agree and, therefore, he had returned back, however his father in law (complainant) had stayed in the house of the appellants. On 25.08.2005, telephonic message was received informing demise of Sushila. He has stated in the cross examination that twice he had been to the house of Sushila, however he was unable to give the description of the house of the appellants as well as particulars of his visits and reason of his visits. 8. PW-3, Shripati Eknath Aute, neighbour of the deceased, is the star witness of the prosecution. He has stated in drp {9} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 the evidence that he is neighbour of the appellants and know the appellants and the deceased. He has stated that in the night of 24.08.2005, when he was sitting in his courtyard, at about 9.30 p.m. he saw deceased was going to answer nature’s call and at that time she was weeping. She had requested him to pass on a message to her parents to pay Rs.50,000/- to the appellants else her life was in danger. Thereafter, appellant No.3 came there and both of them went. At about 1.30 a.m., he heard shouts from the house of the appellants as “Vachava, Vachava” (Save Me Save Me). Therefore, he had rushed to the house of the appellants and gave call, thereafter appellant No.1 had opened the door and he saw that Sushila was lying on the floor and the appellants were surrounded her. He has further stated that he woke up at about 6.00 a.m. and noticed nobody outside the house of appellants, who generally woke up at 4.00 a.m. to collect water from water tap. He has further stated that thereafter, in the morning, he went to Hingoli to inform brother of Sushila about the incident of night, however when he reached at Hingoli, he learnt that brother of Sushila had already left to attend her funeral. Omissions are proved in his cross examination that he had not stated in the statement before police that when Sushila met him, she was weeping and had informed him to pass on a message to her parents to pay Rs.50,000/- to the appellants. Further omissions are proved in the cross examination that he has not stated in the statement before police that on hearing shouts from drp {10} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 the house of the appellants at 1.30 a.m. he had went to their house and had seen that Sushila was lying on the floor and the appellants were surrounded her. He has further admitted that he has not stated in the statement before police that in the morning at 6.00 a.m. he had gone to Hingoli to inform brother of Sushila about the incident witnessed by him in the night. He has further admitted in his cross examination that he has not stated in the statement before police that the appellants have killed Sushila by pressing her mouth. He has further stated that his house is situated at the distance of about 30 to 40 feet from the house of appellants and number of houses are situated between the house of the appellants and his house. He has also admitted that he has not disclosed the incident to the neighbours, police Patil, Sarpanch of the village or to the police, on the next day. He has further stated that after he returned to village from Hingoli, he did not meet the mother and other relatives of Sushila. His statement was recorded by the police after 4 days of the incident. He has also admitted that there is long standing civil and criminal litigations with the appellants. In unequivocal terms he has admitted that he has not informed about the incident to brother, parents or relatives of Sushila. 9. In this background, heard learned counsel for the appellants followed by the submissions of learned APP. Learned APP supported the impugned judgment of conviction and urged for dismissal of the appeal. drp {11} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 10. Learned counsel for appellant rightly pointed out that the evidence of the prosecution witness No.3 Shripati, cannot be relied upon. For, the incident allegedly witnessed by him in the night between 24th and 25th of August 2005, is belied from the proved omissions in his cross examination, as he has neither stated the same in the statement before police nor in the statement recorded by JMFC, Kalamnuri u/s 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. His evidence cannot be relied on due to the fact that according to him, on the next morning, he had been to Hingoli to inform about the incident witnessed by him to the brother of the deceased, however, he could not inform him as when he reached at Hingoli, brother of the deceased had already left to the village of the appellants to attend the funeral of Sushila and Bhujan-brother of the deceased and Shashikalabai-mother of the deceased have stated that they reached in the village before Inquest Panchanama and Spot Panchanama were drawn. Further, his evidence cannot be relief upon on the simple ground that according to him, the alleged incident has occurred in the night between 24th and 25th August, however, as per the medical evidence, Sushila expired 12 hours prior to the conducting of the Postmortem, which was conducted at 10.30 a.m. on 26th August 2010 and the death of Sushila was intimated by appellant No.2 in Akhada Balapur police station at 4.45 p.m. on 25th August 2005. Thus, it is clear that the death of Sushila does not occur in the night between 24th and 25th August, as alleged by Shripati but Sushila expired during the day drp {12} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 time on 25th August 2005. Apart from it, evidence of Dr.Ayesha and the Postmortem report (Exhibit-63) clearly indicate that during the postmortem, neither marks of violence soon before the incident nor old marks of injuries were noticed on the dead body, which falsifies the allegations of harassment and torture by appellants for demand of Rs.50,000/-. 11. It is also brought to our notice from the medical evidence that other than the injuries noted in column No.17, no other external injury was found on the person of Sushila, which rules out the story of prosecution that Sushila was first killed by strangulation or by pressing her neck and thereafter her body was hanged to ceiling to create a scene of suicide. Thus, it can be inferred that death of Sushila is not a homicidal one but it is a suicidal one. If the death of Sushila is a suicidal and not homicidal, then it cannot be held that Sushila was first murdered and thereafter, to conceal the evidence, her body was hanged to ceiling. Therefore, the appellants cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable u/s 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 12. Learned counsel for the appellants also urged, by pointing out the evidence of PW-5 Bhujan, PW-6 Shashikala and PW-7 Digambar, that the alleged demand of Rs.50,000/- by the appellants from the parents of the deceased was somewhere 5 to 6 days prior to the Deewali festival of 2004. It has been categorically admitted by PW-5 Bhujan, brother of the deceased, that after drp {13} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 Deewali festival of 2004, Sushila had not visited her parents house. He has stated that he has visited the matrimonial house of Sushila during the said period on two occasions, however, he could not furnish the details of the said visits. PW-6 Shashikala has fairly admitted in her evidence that after marriage of Sushila, Shashikala had never visited the matrimonial house of Sushila. Had there been harassment and torture of Sushila by the appellants and it is improbable and unnatural that her parents and relatives would not have visited the matrimonial house of Sushila to enquire about her well being. Evidence of PW-7 Digambar brother in law of the deceased, that during his visit along with his father in law to bring Sushila back to her parents house for the festival of Panchami, the appellants had refused to sent her, as Rs.50,000/- were not paid by the parents of Sushila and at that time father of Sushila had assured to pay the same after selling the soyaben crop, cannot be accepted because the same has not been supported from the contents of the FIR. Even the FIR is silent on the aspect that PW-7 had accompanied father of Sushila to the house of the appellants. Though FIR is not a substantive piece of evidence, yet, the contents therein have to be proved by leading cogent evidence. Unfortunately, in this case, the complainant has expired during the pendency of the trial and hence could not be examined, however the fact remains that the evidence of PW-7 Digambar is not supported by the evidence of Bhujan and Shashikala. In the premise, we are of the considered view that the prosecution is also failed to establish that the appellants have committed an offence drp {14} Cri. Appeal No.282/2009 punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 13. In substance, after re-appreciation of the evidence, we are of the opinion that the evidence on record is not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty for the offence punishable u/s 302 r/w 34, 498A r/w 34 and 201 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the appeal ought to succeed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants requires to be quashed and set aside. 14. Criminal Appeal No.282 of 2009 is allowed and the conviction and sentence of the appellants is hereby quashed and set aside and they are acquitted of the offences with which they were charged and convicted. Fine, if paid by the appellants be refunded to them. 15. Since accused No.1 Santosh s/o Baburao Bagal and accused No.4 Ankush s/o Baburao Bagal are in jail, they be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. Bail bonds of accused No.2 Baburao s/o Ambadas Bagal and accused No.3 Kamalbai w/o Baburao Bagal stand cancelled. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/B10/criapel282-09