* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 396 OF 2009 Dr. Satish Keshavrao Deshmukh ..........Applicant V/S. The State of Maharashtra ..............Respondent --------- Mr. P.B. Shah, adv.for applicant. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP for State-respondent no.1. CORAM: SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 1st SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. This Criminal Revision Application arises out of the order of dismissal of the Appeal by the District Court, Nashik and thereby confirming conviction of the applicant for commission of the offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 IPC. 2. The applicant is a Doctor by profession. On 11th September, 2002, the applicant gave telephonic message to Panchavati Police Station about the death of his wife Bharati, also a Doctor, by hanging from a ceiling fan. The police officers initially registered a case of accidental death leading to the limited * 2 * investigation of inquest panchanama and spot panchanama. On the following day i.e. on 12th September, 2002. p.w. 4 Dr. Chandrashekhar, the brother of the deceased lodged First Information Report alleging that the appellant had killed Bharati by strangulating her. The investigation into the complaint by p.w. 4 revealed following facts that were part of the chargesheet filed by the respondent against the applicant and co-accused, one Rinku @ Suhasini. The applicant and Bharati, both doctors got married in the year 1988. It was a love marriage. They have two children, Kumar Parikshit being the eldest. Both were running a hospital named after Parikshit. Then one day, accused no.2 Rinku walked into the life of the applicant completely destroying the matrimonial life of the applicant and Bharati. The applicant and accused got married in a clandestine manner at Sagareshwar in a temple. They had stayed together at Sagareshwar in a guest house on 26th June, 1998 describing themselves as husband and wife. On 22nd March, 1999 accused no.2 delivered a baby girl, in the hospital of p.w. 2 Dr. Ashar. In the hospital records, accused no.2 gave her name as Suhasini Satish Deshmukh i.e. describing herself as the wife of the applicant. From the time of his involvement with accused no.2, the applicant as well as accused no.2 started harassing Bharati. Both were insisting that Bharati should either accept accused no.2 in the house or leave the matrimonial home or give divorce to the applicant. However, Bharati was not willing to do either. Bharati had complained about the harrassment to p.w. 4 and also her * 3 * matrimonial uncle. 3. When the plans of accused no.2 to be part of household of the applicant failed, she filed criminal proceedings against the applicant being Regular Criminal proceedings No. 454 of 2000 under Section 498A IPC. In the said complaint, she claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the appellant. When the proceedings were served upon the appellant, the harrassment of Bharati mounted. The applicant and his family members started bringing pressure on her that she should also adopt daughter of accused no.2. Accused no.2 would also call up Bharati demanding that she should either be allowed to stay in the house alongwith Bharati or give divorce to the applicant. On 26th January, 2000 p.w. 4 had visited Bharati to wish her on her birthday. He found that the applicant, the applicant s father and his uncle one Madhavrao were insisting ’ that Bharati should take daughter of accused no.2 in adoption. It appears that thereafter the criminal proceedings between the applicant and accused no.2 were compounded when the applicant agreed to look after accused no.2 and her daughter. On 28th August, 2002 when p.w. 4 had visited Bharati s residence ’ on the day of Rakhi Pournima, Bharati informed him that since the date of compromise of the criminal proceedings between the appellant and accused no. 2, both were insisting that Bharati should agree for divorce. Within a month thereafter, Bharati committed suicide by hanging herself by ceiling fan. 4. The first defence of the applicant was that death of Bharati was not * 4 * suicidal, but accidental. He also alleged that p.w. 4 had falsely implicated him in the case in order to avoid repaying loan taken by him from the applicant. It was also suggested during the cross-examination of the witness that after the incident of suicide, the family members of Bharati had demanded huge amounts from the applicant and as their demands were not met, the applicant was involved in a false case. Another motive alleged to p.w. 4 was that his desire of taking daughter of the applicant and Bharati in adoption was not fulfilled. 5. After the chargesheet was filed, accused no.2 moved this court for quashing of the proceedings by filing Criminal Application No. 3224 of 2004. By the interim orders passed in the application, the trial against accused no.2 was stayed. As such, the charges were framed against the applicant alone and the trial completed. 6. The trial court, on appreciation of the evidence held that Bharati had committed suicide and the suicide was abated by the applicant. It also held that applicant had subjected Bharati to cruelty. 7. The additional charge against the applicant under Section 494 IPC was however held to be not proved and the appellant was acquitted of the offence. The applicant has been sentenced to suffer 3 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498 IPC and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. For the commission of the offence under Section 306 IPC, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment, for a period of 5 years and pay fine of Rs.5,000/-. The * 5 * appeal court upheld all the findings of the trial court and confirmed the sentence. 8. Both the courts have relied upon the findings of the Medical Officer, P.W. No.6 who has in his evidence after describing in detail, the injuries found on the person of Bharati, ruled out the possibility of accidental death. The courts also took note of the facts disclosed in the spot panchanama. It showed that the latch of the door and its two screws were lying on the floor of the bedroom giving rise to the inference that the door of the bedroom was closed from inside and it had been subsequently forced open. The courts discounted the defence argument that when Bharati was cleaning the ceiling fan, her dupatta got entangled with it and she died of strangulation. The courts noted that if Bharati was merely cleaning the ceiling fan, there was no need for her to close the door from inside by pulling the latch. The courts also took note of the absence of the applicant from the house after he reported the death to the respondent. The courts by looking to the post-mortem report, certificate of final cause of death and the oral evidence, held that Bharati committed suicide by hanging herself from the ceiling fan in her bedroom in the afternoon of 11th September, 2003. The courts also held that Bharati was subjected to cruelty and the cruelty was such that it caused grievous injury, both mentally and physically to her and it drew her to commit suicide. 9. Mr. Shah, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that the conduct * 6 * of the applicant cannot be treated as cruelty within the meaning of Section 498 IPC and argues that the courts below erred in convicting the applicant under Section 498 and 306 IPC. The facts established before the court show that about 10 years after his marriage in the year 1988, accused no.2 walked into the life of the applicant. He not only get emotionally involved with her but also married her clandestinely. She bears a child from him. There is evidence to show that both the applicant as well as accused no.2 used to insist that Bharati should accept accused no.2 in her household or divorce the applicant. There was also insistence that Bharati should adopt the child of accused no.2. When Bharati did not budge, it led to frequent quarrels between the two. Unfortunately, the whole affair did not remain confined to the four walls of the house of the applicant. When accused no.2 filed criminal proceedings under Section 498 IPC against the applicant, the affair became open and public. If this treatment of Bharati by the applicant cannot be said to be cruelty, one wonders what else can be. I find no substance whatsoever in the argument advanced that the conduct of the applicant cannot be said to be cruelty within the meaning of the term under Section 498A IPC. In my considered opinion, both the courts below have rightly appreciated the facts established by the prosecution and convicted the appellant and appropriately sentenced him. Hence the Criminal Revision Application is dismissed. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J] * 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3224 OF 2004 Rinku alias Suhasini Balkrishna Navadkar ............Applicant V/S. 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Dr. Chandrashekhar Khaitan ..............Respondents. --------- Advocate for applicant absent. Mr. J.P. Kharge, APP for State-respondent no.1. CORAM: SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 1st SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. :- 1. By the order dated 20th July 2009, this application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was directed to be heard alongwith Criminal Revision Application No. 396 of 2009. Accordingly, both the matters were tagged together and placed on the board of final hearing. When both the applications were taken up for final hearing on 24th August, 2009, the applicant and her advocate were absent. The submissions in Criminal Revision Application No. 396 of 2009 were heard and both the applications were posted to today for orders. Today also, the applicant and her advocate are absent. Hence, the Application is dismissed for default. [SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J]