Vijay vs State Of Maharashtra

Vijay ....Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra ...Respondent

JUDGMENT

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. In this appeal challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench of

the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, allowing the appeal filed by the

State. By the common judgment two appeals were disposed of. One was by

Suman (hereinafter to be described as `A-3') while the other was by the

State. Five accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code,

1 1860 (in short the `IPC'). Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge,

Khamgaon directed acquittal of accused 1, 2, 4 and 5. The present appellant

was A-1. The trial Court directed conviction of accused Suman who in the

meantime died. The appeal filed by the State was admitted only against the

acquittal of present appellant. High Court allowed the appeal and convicted

appellant for offences punishable under Section 498A, 304-B and 306 IPC.

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Shrirang (PW-1) S/o Yashwant Raut and Sou. Vimal W/o Shrirang

Raut resident of Bhusawal had two daughters and a son. Nirmala (PW-3)

w/o. Subhash Marine is their elder daughter and Anita (hereinafter referred

to as `deceased') was their younger daughter. Anita was married to accused

No.1 Vijay S/o Pralhad Ghodke on 14.2.1990. After their marriage, Anita

went to stay with her husband at Khamgaon. Accused No.3 Suman is the

mother-in-law, accused No.4 Pralhad S/o Rangnath Ghodke is the father-in-

law and accused no.2 Raju S/o Pralhad Ghodke and accused no.5 Pappu S/o

Pralhad Ghodke are the brothers-in-law of Anita. All of them were residing

jointly.

During Diwali of 1990, Anita went to her parental house at

Bhusawal and stayed there for about 4-5 days, During her stay Anita told

2 her parents that her husband (accused No.1-Vijay) was demanding

Rs.10,000/- and her mother-in-law (accused No.3 Suman) was demanding

gold ring. The parents of Anita expressed their inability to satisfy the

demand.

On 7.2.1991 Shrirang (PW-1) received a letter (Exh. 19) of Anita

reiterating the demand of gold ring and money. After receiving the letter,

PW-1 Shrirang (PW-1) went to the matrimonial house of Anita and asked

her husband and mother-in-law to send Anita with him. However, they did

not send her. So he went back. On 10.4.1991 the parents of Anita received

message that Anita died due to burning. Hence they rushed to Khamgaon

where they had to attend the funeral of Anita. Then Shrirang (PW-1) lodged

report with Police Station, Khamgaon. Since no action was taken, he moved

Superintendent of Police, Buldana (Vide Exh. 20). On the direction of

Superintendent of Police, Buldana Crime No, 118/1991 under Sections 498-

A and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered

at Police Station, Khamgaon on 14.4.1991 against the accused persons.

After investigation the accused persons were charge sheeted. The defence of

the accused persons was of denial.

3 In order to establish the accusations the prosecution examined six

witnesses including Shrirang (PW-1) the father of the deceased, Vimal (PW-

2) the mother of the deceased and Smt. Nirmala (PW-3) the elder sister of

the deceased. The trial Court found that the demand of gold ring by A-3

and cruelty to deceased on account of non satisfaction of the demand was

proved only against A-3. It was found that Anita had committed suicide.

Accordingly, A-3 was convicted as afore-noted and rest of the accused

persons were acquitted. As noted above, Suman challenged the conviction

whereas the State challenged the acquittal of rest of the accused persons.

The High Court found that the case of prosecution depended upon the

interpretation of Exh.19 i.e. the letter written by the deceased to PW-1. The

trial Court found that the letter only referred to the demand of gold ring by

A-3 and there was nothing to implicate the present appellant. The High

Court, however, felt that on reading of Exh.19 it is crystal clear that the

same also related to the demand of Rs.10,000/- by the present appellant.

Accordingly, as noted above, while dismissing the appeal filed by A-3 the

State's appeal in respect of present appellant was allowed.

4

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had

rightly held that in Exh.19 there was nothing to implicate the present

appellant. Therefore, his acquittal was correct, but the High Court on

erroneous reading of the document has directed conviction.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the order.

5. In the letter on which both the trial Court and the High Court have

relied upon to conclude one way or the other, reference is made to several

earlier letters. It specifically refers to the demand by mother-in-law of a gold

ring. There is no reference to the present appellant in the letter.

6. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is also relevant. PW-1 has stated that

except Exh.19 he had not received any letter and the statement in the letter

to the effect that the deceased had earlier sent 2/3 letters is correct. If on one

hand he says that he had not received any letter, the question of not replying

to them does not arise. Similarly, PW-2 has stated that she cannot say

whether there was any demand of Rs.10,000/- in Exh.19. PW-3 has accepted

that deceased had written to her father that mother-in-law Suman was

demanding gold ring in the letter (Ext.19).

5

7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is some reference

to money in the letter. The sentence is being read out of context. The

deceased had written in the letter that she may have to get a gold ring but

wherefrom will she get the money for buying it. Therefore, there is no

reference to any demand of money by the present appellant. That being so,

the High Court was not justified in upsetting the judgment of the trial Court.

The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial

Court is restored.

8. The appeal is allowed.

.................................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

...............................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi, December 1, 2008

6