1 APEAL 100 OF 2006 vks IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100 OF 2006 1. Avidabai Ramanna Vhanmane, 2. Ramanna Somling Vhanmane, 3. Bhagwat Ramanna Vhanmane, 4. Shilvantabai Ashok Shirwadkar residing at : Tigali, Tal. Indi, District: Vijapur, Karnataka State. .. Appellants Original accused -versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent. Mr. P. R. Arjunwadkar, for the appellants. Ms. R. M. Gadhavi, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: R.C. CHAVAN, J. DATED: 29th November, 2011 Oral Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the appellants’ conviction for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur and sentence of R.I. for 2 years and 5 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and Rs. 2 APEAL 100 OF 2006 2,000/- or in default R.I. for six months and R.I. for one year, respectively imposed upon the appellants on the two counts. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- Victim Prabhavati was married to appellant No.3 Bhagwat on 8.5.2004. Bhagwat’s parents Avidabai and Ramanna, the accused Nos 1 and 2, were related to victim’s father Sidram through Sidram’s mother. Both families knew each other very well. Sidram’s brother Revansidha owns agricultural land in village Nandur, where the appellants reside. Revansidha’s son Ravindra also has a cable network in village Nandur which connects 100 families. Victim stayed with her in-laws i.e. appellants for about 8 days after marriage and she came back to her parents as is customary. After staying for 2 days, she was taken back by the appellants. Record shows that she had been admitted to hospital by her parents between 31st May, 2004 to 2nd June, 2004, because she was suffering from gastroenteritis. She stayed with her parents four more days after discharge from hospital. Thereafter month of Ashadh of Hindu calendar came. It is customary for the daughter-in-law not to see the face of mother-in-law in this month. Rather than taking the victim to her parents place, the mother-in-law, appellant No.1 Avidabai, was taken to the house of Sidram, though not for the full 3 APEAL 100 OF 2006 month of Ashadh, but only for four days. It is alleged that Avidabai, the appellant No.1, during her stay at Sidram’s house noticed their rich life style. After going back, she started asking her daughter-in-law, the victim, to bring Television set and other amenities of living which were available at her father’s house. Illtreatment allegedly began thereafter. Month of Ashadh came to an end around 17th July, 2004. According to learned counsel, this was followed by 13th month/ “Adhik maas” in the Marathi calendar, which comes once after every four years. It is customary for parents of daughter-in-law to give presents to the son-in-law in this 13th month/Adhik maas, and accordingly Sidram is supposed to have given a brass-vessel to his son-in-law. Contrary to the expectation of son-in-law, the vessel was empty rather than filled with sugar. This was another cause of illtreatment to victim. 3. On 19th August, 2004, the appellant No.2 Ramanna, is supposed to have gone to the bank where Sidram works. He told Sidram that there was a job opportunity for victim’s husband, i.e. appellant No.3 Bhagwat, for which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- was required, Sidram was unable to pay and expressed his inability. This seems to have been further cause for victim’s illtreatment. Rakshabandhan festival was to be celebrated on 29th August, 2004, when victim expected to go 4 APEAL 100 OF 2006 back to her parental house. However, she was kept at the house of in-laws itself. On 28th August, the appellant No.4 the victim’s sister-in-law, the daughter of appellant Nos 1 and 2 and sister of appellant No.3, had come to her parental house for festival of Rakshabandhan. Therefore, she got tied up in this unfortunate incident. On 28th August, 2004, victim suffered sever burns. She died on the spot and in the course of postmortem examination, she was found to have suffered 100% burns, report about incident was given by victim’s father on 29th August, 2004, whereupon an offence was registered. After completion of investigation, a chargesheet was sent to the Court of J.M.,F.C. Court No.2, at Solapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Solapur. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged four appellants of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since they pleaded not guilty, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 12 witnesses and it seems that four more witnesses were examined pursuant to the orders of the trial Court to carry out some further investigation about presence of P.W.4 Parsuram Kenchappa Kambale, at the time of demand of Rs.1,50,000/- 5. After considering the prosecution evidence in the 5 APEAL 100 OF 2006 light of defence that victim has not been illtreated and there was no demand, and that victim might have died due to accidental fire, learned Additional Sessions Judge, held appellants guilty, convicted and sentenced them as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellants are before this Court. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. With the help of both the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire evidence on record. 7. The learned trial Judge seems to have been excessively concerned about the evidence of demand of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 19th August, 2004, allegedly made by the appellant No.2 Ramanna in presence of P.W.4 Parsuram, who had happened to come to the bank where the P.W. 1 Sidram was serving as peon. Therefore, P.W. Nos 13 to 16 came to be examined. I propose to ignore the evidence of P.W. Nos 13 to 16 as it has absolutely no bearing on the facts required to be examined. About the demand of Rs.1,50,000/- the evidence tendered, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants, is inconsistent. While P.W.1 Sidram states that this demand was made when he was in the bank, but does not state the date, it was presumably made on 19th August, 2004 6 APEAL 100 OF 2006 as stated by P.W.4 Parsuram. P.W.5 Mahananda Sangappa Bhoura, the neighbour of Sidram, states that victim herself had conveyed about this demand by appellants of Rs. 1,50,000/- to her when she had been to her parents house. It is not the case of P.W. 1 Sidram, his brother P.W.2 Revansiddha or P.W.3 – Ravindra son of P.W.3 Revansiddha that the victim had ever conveyed to them that the appellants were demanding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-. 8. As to the illtreatment attributed to appellant Nos 1 and 2, parents-in-law on account of non fulfillment of demand and luxury items like T.V. set, learned counsel for the appellant is right in submitting that the parties were not only knowing each other very well but also related to each other. Village Nandur is at a distance of 17 kms from Solapur where Sidram resides. According to evidence tendered, parties had been visiting each others houses even before marriage. Therefore, there can be no occasion for appellant No.1 Avidabai to discover for the first time that her daughter-in- law’s parents were residing in comparative luxury. Given the relations between the parties as also the fact that P.W.3 Ravindra used to visit village Nandur because of his cable business, and P.W.2 Revansidhha had agricultural land in that village, it would be difficult to imagine that illtreatment to the victim would go unnoticed by these persons. In any case 7 APEAL 100 OF 2006 neither P.W. 1 Sidram nor P.W.2 Revansidhha and P.W.3, Ravindra, stated specifically about any illtreatment meted out to victim prior to her suffering burns. 9. It must be mentioned that presence of appellant No. 4 is just co-incidental. She happened to be at her parents house for festival of ‘Rakshabandhan’ and was added as accused to this case. She was in fact residing with her husband at a different place in Karnataka State. Therefore, her participation in the alleged illtreatment, should not have at all been accepted by the learned trial Judge. As far as appellant Nos 1 and 2 are concerned, since there is no physical abuse attributed to them, the learned trial Judge should not have easily accepted the allegations about illtreatment, which surfaced only after the death of the victim. It is also worthy of note, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the evidence about victim’s suffering injury on her head, coming through the prosecution witnesses, show that the victim herself had dashed her head and injured herself because she was allegedly fed up with the treatment given to her by her in-laws. 10. From the evidence of P.W.2 Revansiddha and P.W.3 Ravindra, it appears that this incident of banging of head was after the month of Ashad, or possibly in the Adhik/13th month 8 APEAL 100 OF 2006 of Hindu calendar. It was sought to be made out that because of this injury she had to be admitted to hospital. Exh. 22, the discharge certificate from the hospital, however shows that the victim had been admitted to hospital between 31st May, 2004 to 2nd June, 2004 when in fact there was absolutely no question of any demand being made or any illtreatment being meted out. Therefore, Exh.22, which had been shown to P.W.1 Sidram in the course of his cross examination, would rule out the possibility of the victim banging her head on account of any illtreatment. However, this does not lead to the conclusion that the victim had not committed suicide or that the victim died as a result of accidental fire. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants sought to submit that there was a stove on the spot as seen from the panchnama of spot drawn up by P.W.7. Stove has been noted in the panchnama, but has not been seized, obviously because there was nothing to indicate that the stove had burst. Therefore, this would rule out the case of any accidental burns. Even so the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of P.W.8 Dr. Telkar, who conducted postmortem examination on the victim’s body, stated that the victim could have suffered such accidental burns. The Medical Officers agree to possibilities which are put up to them. It would be really difficult for Medical Officer to conclude as to 9 APEAL 100 OF 2006 whether the burns were accidental or suicidal only on the basis of examination of injuries. Whether the burns were accidental or contrived could only be seen by the circumstances on the spot and other evidence. Therefore, opinion of Dr. Telkar that victim died possibly of accidental burns is of no consequence. 12. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor is right in submitting that no woman within three months of marriage, would have really any reason to commit suicide unless she had been subjected to some illtreatment. Since appellant No.3 Bhagwat was her husband, it was for him to ensure that conditions which would provoke victim to commit suicide were not created. In view of this, the conviction of the appellant No. 3- Bhagwat, by the learned trial Judge cannot be faulted. However, the conviction of appellant Nos 1, 2 and 4 cannot be sustained. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sentence imposed on appellant Bhagwat is too harsh. This sentence cannot at all be called harsh by any standards given the fact that the victim, who must have expected to lead happy married life, had to put an end to her life within a period three months. Therefore, the conviction of appellant No.3 or sentence imposed upon him does not call for any 10 APEAL 100 OF 2006 interference. 14. In the result the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 7.12.2005 in Sessions Case No.252 of 2004, passed by Ist Ad-Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, convicting the appellant Nos 1 Avidabai Vhanmane, appellant No.2- Ramanna Vhanmane and appellant No. 4- Shilvantabai Shirwadkar, for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentence of R.I. for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/- or in default R.I. for six months and R.I. for 5 years and fine of Rs.2,000/- or in default R.I. for one year, respectively on each of the two counts, is set aside and the appellant Nos 1, 2 and 4 are acquitted of the offences charged. Their bail bonds stand cancelled. The conviction of appellant No.3 Bhagwat Ramanna Vhanmane for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence imposed upon him are maintained. (R. C. CHAVAN, J.)