1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2183 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Nathrao s/o Raosaheb Darade & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for applicant/State ..... W I T H CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2196 OF 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... APPLICANT VERSUS Sunanda d/o Raosaheb Darade & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for applicant/State ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 20TH AUGUST, 2009. ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard. 2 2. It is an unfortunate pathetic story of daughter-in-law married to Nathrao Raosaheb Darade on 12.6.2006. The prosecution case is that, at the time of settlement of marriage, dowry of Rs.1,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the parents of the deceased Dnyaneshwari, out of which Rs.50,000/- were paid. As remaining amount was not paid, Dnyaneshwari was ill-treated by the accused persons. As this was disclosed by Dnyaneshwari herself to her parents, parents tried to convince the accused persons, but nothing fruitful happened and it seems that the relations continued to be strained on account of non payment of amount of dowry. The prosecution case unfolds that Dnyaneshwari had no other alternative as she was fed up with the ill-treatment meted out to her, she jumped into a well and died. The incident took place on 13.4.2006. The brother of Dnyaneshwari informed the police. Thereafter the investigation started and after conclusion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet against 7 persons for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. 3. By judgment and order dated 2.3.2009, the Assistant Sessions Judge, Ambajogai convicted and sentenced the accused Nathrao for an offence punishable under Sections 306, 3 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code for a period of 5 years with fine and accused Raosaheb (father-in-law) and accused Venubai (mother-in-law) for a period of three years with fine. Rest of the accused were acquitted of all the charges. The State preferred two separate appeals against the acquittal of original accused Nos.1 to 3 for an offence punishable under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code and against rest of the accused who were acquitted of all the charges. 4. Record and proceedings was called for. We have perused the same. Learned A.P.P. Shri Sonawane submitted that there is no convincing reasoning given by the trial Court for awarding lesser sentence to accused Nos.2 and 3 for the same offence for which the accused No.1 was convicted and sentenced for a period of 5 years. On merits, the learned A.P.P. submitted that the death of Dnyaneshwari occurred in suspicious circumstances. Two injuries are noticed on her person. Death was due to asphyxia due to drowning and considering the facts of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution, it was submitted by the A.P.P. that it was a dowry death as demand of unpaid amount of Rs.50,000/- was not fruitful, the accused ill- treated the deceased to such an extent that there was no other alternative to Dnyaneshwari but to commit suicide. This is a 4 serious offence which has to be taken seriously. 5. At the outset, we share the concern of A.P.P. that offences, against women, of this type has to be strongly deprecated and have to be met with firm view. If offences of this nature are established, then stringent punishment deserves to be inflicted on the persons who are responsible for commission of such offences. 6. In search of demand of Rs.50,000/-, a precious life of a woman is lost. We find the trial Court has scanned evidence and fastened responsibility against respondent No.1, husband of the deceased and respondent Nos.2 and 3 father-in-law and mother- in-law of the deceased. Rest of the accused persons, though close relatives, are not held liable for commission of offence. 7. We have perused the depositions of material witnesses, the medical evidence and the post mortem report. 8. We find from the judgment and order of the trial Court that the order of acquittal of respondent Nos.4 to 7 does not call for interference by this Court. 5 9. Considering the legislative intent behind framing of provisions of Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, prosecution was required to lead evidence accordingly. We find that the prosecution has not established by leading cogent and reliable evidence for convicting and sentencing the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 for an offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code. 10. The learned A.P.P. was right in his submission that accused Nos.2 and 3 were awarded lesser sentence for the same offence for which accused No.1 was awarded sentence of 5 years imprisonment. 11. Perusal of the judgment and order, more particularly paragraph No.28 demonstrates the reasoning of the trial Court for awarding lesser punishment to the in-laws. In fact it is the responsibility of the elders in the house to guide the youngers so that such incidents could be avoided. We cannot accept this as a matter of rule just because the in-laws are of old age, the lesser punishment should be awarded against them. In fact, in matrimonial matters, the responsibility of them is more since they are living along with the newly married daughter-in-law and the younger son. 6 12. The trial Court considered all the aspects of the matter, the evidence on record by giving specific reasons for awarding lesser punishment to the in-laws, has passed the orders. In the fact situation of the case, we do not wish to interfere into the sentencing part of the order passed by the trial Court in the State appeal. 13. For the reasons stated above, we refuse leave to file appeals. The applications are rejected. 14. Record and proceedings be sent back to the trial Court. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) fmp/cri2183.09