Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 2003. Case: The State of Maharashtra Vs Sharad and Ors.. High Court of Bombay (India)
|Criminal Appeal No. 589 of 2003
|For Appellant: A.D. Namde, A.P.P. and For Respondents: Satej S. Jadhav, Advocate
|S.S. Shinde, J.
|Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 113A, 4; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Sections 107, 294, 306, 498A
|May 08, 2017
|High Court of Bombay (India)
S.S. Shinde, J., (Aurangabad Bench)
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Ist Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ambajogai in Session Case No. 83 of 2001, decided on 30th May, 2003.
The brief facts of the prosecution case are as under:-
PW-4 Namdev Vitthalrao, Jadhav, resident of village Karewadi, Tq-Parali-Vaijnath lodged First Information Report alleging therein that deceased Smita was his sister. Her marriage was solemnized with accused No. 1 before five years from registering the First Information Report. She had begotten one child out of the said wed-lock. She was properly treated and stayed happily for six months in the matrimonial house. Thereafter accused Nos. 1 and 2 started ill-treating and beating her, and harassing on the count of domestic reasons. It is alleged that accused used to ill-treat Smita to bring the money to satisfy the domestic expenses. Whenever Smita used to visit the parents house, she used to disclose about the ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the accused.
It is further alleged that in the summer season before the death of Smita, when the informant went to Alandi to do the work as mason (Mistri), Smita and accused No. 1 came at Alandi for doing the labour work. They stayed their for 5 to 6 days. Thereafter accused demanded Rs. 7,000/- to satisfy domestic expenses. Accused No. 1 threatened the informant that in case said amount is not paid, he will kill his wife Smita by burning. Accused No. 1 in presence of the informant at Alandi, beat Smita on account of non-payment of Rs. 7000/- by the informant. Due to fear of accused No. 1, informant paid Rs. 2,000/- to him. Thereafter accused No. 1 with Smita left Alandi and went to Chanai. Accused No. 1 sold golden ornaments of Smita and started beating her after consuming the liquor.
It is further alleged that 2 to 3 days before Rakhi Pournima, brother of the informant, namely Pandurang had gone to Chanai to meet Smita. In his presence accused beat Smita and asked Pandurang to pay remaining amount and refused to send Smita to the parents house. Before the said incident, informant and some villagers from his village, had gone to Chanai and persuaded accused No. 1 not to ill-treat or harass Smita but he continued the ill-treatment and harassment to Smita.
It is further alleged that on 4th August, 2001, one jeep came to Karewadi from Chanai and one person from the said jeep informed that Smita is no more. Thereafter informant and his family members rushed to Ambajogai and when came to the hospital, they came to know that Smita consumed poison at about 4.00 p.m. on 4th August, 2001 due to ill-treatment by both the accused and died at about 5.30 p.m."
On 5th August, 2001, the informant lodged First Information Report at Police Outpost at S.R.T.R. Hospital. Said crime was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was filed. After framing charge, full-fledged trial was conducted and the Respondents were acquitted. Hence this Appeal filed by the State.
Learned A.P.P. appearing for the State invites my attention to the evidence of PW-4 Namdev Jadhav (informant), PW-5- Pandurang Jadhav (brother of informant) and PW-6 Vitthal Jadhav (father of informant) and submits that if their evidence is read in its entirety, then it unequivocally indicates that there was ill-treatment and harassment to Smita at the hands of the accused. It is submitted that evidence of PW-3 Dr. Kachre, Medical Officer clearly shows that Smita committed suicide due to instigation and abetment by accused No. 1 - Sharad Dasharath Sawre. He submits that there was no reason for Smita to commit suicide other than ill-treatment and harassment at the hands of the accused. Therefore, he submits that the Appeal may be allowed.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondents/accused, relying upon the findings recorded by the trial Court, submits that plausible view has been taken...
To continue readingRequest your trial