1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.284 OF 2006 The State of Maharashtra, through Kundlik Shankar Sonwane, R/o Prasadnagar, Rahuri Factory, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar .. Appellant (Orig.Complainant) Versus Shivnath Dharma Gaikwad, Age 25 years, R/o Tajnapur, Tq. Shrirampur, District Ahmednagar .. Respondent (Orig.Accused) Shri V.D.Godbharle, Assistant Public Prosecutor for appellant-State Shri D.D.Pokharkar, Advocate (appointed) for the respondent CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE : 3rd November 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. This appeal against acquittal has been admitted by this Court and since the accused is in jail this appeal has been listed before us for hearing. We had appointed Shri D.D.Pokharkar, learned Counsel for the respondent-accused, who it appears had not engaged any lawyer. Shri Pokharkar, learned Counsel upon perusal of the paper book and particularly the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.5 states that he is in a position to argue the appeal. Therefore, this appeal is heard finally though the learned Counsel has been appointed by us today. 2 2. The State being aggrieved by the judgment of Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur dated 15.10.2005, in Sessions Case No.77 of 2003, acquitting the respondent accused of the offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code has filed the present appeal. 3. Such of the facts as are necessary for the decision of this appeal may briefly be stated thus. Deceased Anita was married to the accused. It appears that the relation between the deceased and the accused were strained and there used to be frequent quarrels between the accused and deceased Anita on account of the fact that the respondent – accused was demanding money from deceased Anita for purchasing a gersy cow. It was also alleged by the prosecution that deceased Anita was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent – accused who in an inebriated condition used to assault deceased Anita. A report at Exh.16 came to be lodged by P.W.1 Pandharinath about noticing of a dead body in his Well on 20.10.2003. Pursuant thereto, the dead body was drawn from the Well and the scene of the offence panchnama at Exh.18 came to be drawn in the presence of D.W.2 Suresh. The dead body which was drawn from the Well was of deceased Anita. Thereafter, inquest panchnama at Exh. 20 came to be drawn in the presence of D.W.3 Karbhari. P.W.4 Kundlik, brother of deceased Anita lodged his report on the basis of which offence punishable under Section 498-A, 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be registered against the respondent-accused. Upon registration of the offence, the investigation was carried out by P.W.7 Gopinath who upon completion of investigation submitted a charge sheet. 4. On committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, charge at Exh.7 under Section 498-A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code came to be framed against the accused. Both the accused denied their 3 guilt and claimed to be tried. Father-in-law expired as a result of which the trial proceeded only against the respondent herein i.e. original accused No.1. During the trial charge for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code came to be added. 5. The pivot of the prosecution is the evidence of P.W.1 Pandharinath and P.W.5 Hari who claims to be an eye witness. P.W.1 Pandharinath in his evidence states that on 20.10.2003 his servant informed him that he had seen a dead body in the Well situated in the agricultural land of P.W. 1 Pandharinath. Accordingly, he went near the Well and noticed the dead body of the wife of accused. He claimed that on an earlier day, i.e. on 19.10.2003 his servant had informed him that there was quarrel between the accused and his wife and accused had pushed his wife as a result of which she had fallen in the Well. A report at Exh.16 came to be presented by P.W.1 Pandharinath intimating about the finding of the dead body of Anita in his Well. P.W.1 Pandharinath was cross-examined at length and in the cross-examination, omissions on material aspects of the prosecution have been elicited. P.W.1 Pandharinath has admitted that he had not stated in his earlier statement that on the earlier day, his servant had informed him that the accused had pushed his wife in the Well. Similarly, he has also admitted that he had not stated in his statement recorded during investigation that accused had thrown deceased in the Well. He has also admitted that he had not stated in his statement recorded during investigation that on that night at about 11.00 p.m., he had peeped in the Well but could not see the dead body. He has also admitted that he had not stated in his previous statement that his servant had informed that the dead body was floating on the water. 6. P.W.1 Pandharinath for the first time introduces that it was the accused who had committed murder of his wife deceased Anita. He claims that his servant had informed him on previous night about the servant having witnessed the accused pushing his wife in the Well. 4 Obviously, all these have been elicited in the cross-examination as omissions. Omissions are on material aspect of the prosecution case and, therefore, affect the credibility of the witness insofar as of information given by the servant that on the earlier day he had seen the accused pushing his wife in the Well. 7. Proseuction has also examined P.W.5 Hari who claims to be an eye witness to the incident. He reiterated what was stated by P.W.1 Pandharinath. In cross-examination also he admits not to have stated in his statement recorded during investigation that he had seen deceased passing by the side of the Well and about having seen the accused pushing the deceased as a result of which deceased had fallen in the Well. Thus, the entire evidence insofar as the deliberate push by the accused to his wife as a result of which she fell in Well have been elicited by way of omissions. P.W.1 Pandharinath has stoutly denied that the accused was his employee whereas P.W.5 Hari admits that the accused was an employee of P.W.1 and there were frequent quarrels between P.W.1 Pandharinath and accused on account of payment of wages. P.W. 5 denied the suggestion that on account of enmity the accused had been falsely implicated. 8. It is thus apparent that the evidence relating to offence under Section 302 is concerned tasks human credulity for its acceptance. The evidence insofar as offence punishable under Section 302 is by way of omissions. Both the witnesses have made material improvements in their evidence. In fact, P.W.7 Gopinath has candidly admitted in the cross- examination that during the investigation it had not transpired that the accused had pushed his wife in the Well. The trial Court has given cogent reason as to why charge under Section 302 has not been established by the prosecution. We have perused the judgment of the trial Court challenged by the State in this appeal against acquittal. There is no perversity in the findings insofar as charge under Section 302 is 5 concerned. 9. Turning to the evidence in respect of charge under Section 498-A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, prosecution has examined P.W.4 Pundlik, brother of deceased and P.W.6 Navnath who is maternal brother of deceased Anita. The evidence of P.W.4 Pundlik is extremely cryptic and vague. It is not stated by P.W.4 Pundlik that the accused was harassing and ill-treating the deceased on account of demand made by the accused for purchasing a gersy cow. P.W.4 Pundlik in cross-examination has admitted that he has not stated in his previous statement that the deceased was well treated for about 5/6 months. He has also admitted that he has not stated in his first information report that the accused started harassing the deceased after the marriage. Similarly, there is omission in respect of the accused demanding amount for purchase of a gersy cow. The evidence of P.W.6 Navnath is not different from the evidence of P.W.4 Pundlik. His evidence is also vague in respect of the alleged ill-treatment or cruelty at the hands of the accused. The trial Court has, therefore, given benefit of doubt to the accused and has repelled the evidence of the prosecution insofar as the charge under Section 498-A read with 34 is concerned. We have perused those findings and according to us, there is no material on record to hold that the view taken by the trial Court is not a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record. According to us, the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and has given benefit of doubt to the accused. 10. Insofar as charge under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the prosecution has not been able to establish that deceased Anita had committed suicide and that was abetted by the accused. No element of abetment of commission of suicide is involved, firstly as the prosecution has not been able to establish that the deceased had committed suicide. The medical evidence is only to the extent that deceased died as a result of asphyxia due to drowning. There is no 6 material on record to rule out the possibility of accidental fall of the deceased in the Well. In that light of the matter, therefore, the charge under Section 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the respondent – accused is unsustainable in law. The trial Court has given succinct reasons for acquittal of the respondent – accused. 11. We have heard learned Assistant Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and Shri Pokharkar, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent. With the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, we have perused the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as perused the exhibited documents. The view taken by the trial Court, according to us is a possible view to be taken on the basis of evidence on record and we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning of the trial Court to warrant any interference in this appeal against acquittal. 12. We, therefore, find that there is no merit in the present appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal filed at the behest of the State is dismissed. Since the accused is in jail, he be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. We quantify the fees payable to Shri D.D.Pokharkar, learned Counsel appointed for respondent, at Rs.3,000/- (Rs.Three thousand).” ( A.V. NIRGUDE ) ( P.V. HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/284.06criapeal) 7