Milind Bhagwanrao Godse vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr

2. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under:

3. The deceased Lata after marriage resided with the appellant. The appellant was living in a joint family with his parents. It was not a happy marriage from its very inception. There was constant taunting leading to mental cruelty to the deceased by the appellant and his parents.

4. The deceased visited her parents at Pandharpur in January 1988. She disclosed to her parents that she was constantly subjected to humiliation. The deceased again visited her parents in May 1988. She again disclosed to her parents that the appellant and his parents used to subject her to extreme mental cruelty and torture. She complained that the appellant asked her not to spend her salary, otherwise he would divorce her.

6. She again visited at Pandharpur on third occasion for the purpose of delivery in July 1988. She was there from July 1988 to October 1988. She delivered a baby boy. The appellant and the deceased took a residential quarter on rent and stayed there for three weeks. However, they vacated the rental premises and started residing separately on the first floor of the ancestral house. The deceased was brought back to the ancestral house against her wishes.

7. It is an admitted position that the appellant was a junior lawyer and not settled in practice. He used to constantly demand money from the deceased. The appellant used to give her threats of divorcing her even in case of slight delay in withdrawing money from the bank to be given to the appellant. According to the statements of Vidhya P.W.7 and Vasant P.W.8, sister and father of the deceased respectively, and Exh. 46, it is abundantly clear that the appellant 5 constantly used to give threats of divorce. This led to extreme mental torture to the deceased.

11. One unknown boy informed Vidhya P.W.7 that the deceased had visited the post office at 1 p.m. on 9.10.1989. Vidhya P.W.7 went to the post office and made enquiry. It was found that the deceased herself had sent telegrams Exhs. 35 to 37 to her father Vasant P.W.8, to her sister Vidhya P.W.7 and to her parental uncle at Kolhapur. Vasant P.W.8 went to the police station and lodged the first information report Exh. 50 on 10.10.1989 at 4.00 p.m. On the basis of the first information report, Crime No. 313 of 1989 was registered under sections 498A and 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

20. The accused persons were tried for offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 IPC. The learned IInd 11 Additional Sessions Judge, Beed relied on the evidence of Sushma P.W.6 (neighbour), Vidhya P.W.7 (sister) and Vasant P.W.8 (father) of the deceased respectively. After careful scrutiny of the entire evidence, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge acquitted accused nos. 2 and 3, but convicted accused no. 1 under section 498A IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,500/-, in default of payment to fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant was also convicted under section 306 IPC and was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and was also directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

21. The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, preferred an appeal before the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad Bench. The High Court correctly analyzed the entire evidence on record and came to a clear finding that the prosecution has established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed and 12 the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed was confirmed. The appellant, aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, preferred this appeal.

24. In our considered view, the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge and the learned Judge of the High Court correctly evaluated the entire evidence on record and arrived at correct conclusion. No interference is called for. The appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. 14

25. Consequently, the bail bond of the appellant are cancelled. The appellant is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining sentence.