Laxman Ram Mane vs State Of Maharashtra

O R D E R

This appeal by way of special leave arises out of

the following facts:

The deceased Vasudha @ Sangeeta was the daughter of

Chandrakant Kumbhar (PW.4) a resident of Tupgaon. Vasudha

had married to the appellant, Laxman Ram Mane, on 16th May,

1990, that is about one and a half years prior to the date

of incident, and after the marriage the couple resided in the matrimonial home at Vitthalwadi, Pali in Raigad

District. As per the prosecution story Vasudha had gone to

her parents' home about one month prior to the incident and

had disclosed to her father and brother of her husband's

dalliance with a girl Pragati by name, and that he would

often abuse and beat her. Chandrakant told Vasudha that he

would talk to her husband on this issue after the

harvesting season was over. A few days after this visit

Chandrakant received a message that his daughter had

drowned in the river. He along with his son (PW.3) Vilas

and Pandharinath and other relatives then rushed to

-2- Pali and a complaint of a missing person was lodged at the

Pali police station by Pandharinath. On the 9th August 1994

the police informed PW.4 that a dead body had been found

near village Shiloshi about 6 k.m. away from the village of

the appellant and the deceased. API Ramesh Deshmukh who

was then attached to the Pali police station, recovered the

dead body which was identified by Chandrakant and Vilas.

After the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet

was filed against the appellant and his two sisters for

offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 306

read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not

guilty and were brought to trial. In the cross examination

the suggestion made by the defence was that the deceased

had gone out to answer the call of nature near the river

and had accidentally slipped in and had been drowned.

The Trial Court examined the various pieces of evidence, they being (1) the evidence of the brother and

the father of the deceased PW.3 and PW.4 respectively; (2)

the evidence of Sunita Birwadkar (PW.2) a cousin of the

deceased who deposed about the cruelty and harassment by

the accused and (3) the evidence of photographer S.N.

Dadholkar (PW.5) who deposed that he had taken the

photograph of the appellant with a young girl and that girl

was identified as Pargati. In the light of the aforesaid

circumstances the Trial Court convicted the appellants

-3-

for offences under Section 306 and Section 498-A of the

IPC but acquitted his sisters. This judgment has been affirmed by the High Court in appeal.

Before us today, Mr. Vinay Navare, the learned

counsel for the appellant, has reiterated the arguments

that had been raised earlier. He has submitted that a

perusal of the Panchnama and the site plan revealed that

the deceased could not have committed suicide but had in

fact drowned in an accident when she had fallen into the

river while answering the call of nature. He has finally

argued that no offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was

made out and that a mere illicit relationship of a husband

with another woman did not amount to cruelty to the wife.

We have considered the arguments advanced very

carefully. First and foremost this is a matter under

Article 136 of the Constitution by way of special leave.

Two courts have found against the appellant on a minute

appreciation of the evidence. We see no reason to hold otherwise. Nonetheless we have gone into the evidence

referred to us by the learned counsel. The fact that the

appellant had been misbehaving with his wife is in the

evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 and PW.4. It has come in their

statements that she was being harassed by the appellant and

his sisters for various reasons and that the appellant

would also side with his sisters. Be that as it may, the

-4-

sisters have already been given the benefit of doubt by the

Trial Court and we have nothing more to say on this aspect.

It is clearly revealed that harassment meted out to the deceased and a presumption under Section 113-A of the

Evidence Act must therefore be raised against the appellant

as admittedly the accident happened about one and a half

years after the marriage.

We are of the opinion that an illicit relationship

of a married man with another woman would clearly amount

to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A. Even

assuming for a moment that this did not amount to cruelty

within the meaning of Section 498-A it could still be used

as a piece of evidence of harassment and misbehaviour of

the appellant towards the deceased.

We have also perused the Panchnama and the site

plan. We find it difficult to believe that a woman who had

been living in the area would have gone to answer the call

of nature at a place where the water was 9 ft. deep and at

a confluence of two rivers. It appears to us, therefore, that this was a case of suicide on account of harassment

meted out to the deceased.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

.................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

....................J. (R.M. LODHA) New Delhi, October 7, 2010.