Kantabai vs The State of Maharashtra

A.I.S. Cheema, J.—Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned A.P.P. for Respondent, finally at the admission stage.

The Petitioner mother in law is co-accused in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2013 (Sate of Maharashtra vs. Vyankati and another), which has been filed against her son Vyankati Khanderao Nakade as accused No. 1 and present Petitioner as accused No. 2 and is pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge 2, Ambajogai. Present Petitioner filed application for discharge but the same was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge 2, Ambajogai, by order dated 4th March, 2014. Thus this Revision. According to the learned counsel for Petitioner, the matter is at the stage of framing of charge, before the Sessions Court.

Learned counsel for Petitioner pointed out that in the charge sheet, copy of which has been filed, it shows allegations that accused No. 1 Vyankati had come home and started quarrel with the victim Vaishali, wife of accused No. 1 and when their quarrel started, present Applicant had gone outside the house and was talking with neighbour, when quarrel aggravated into pouring of diesel on the victim and she being burnt and coming out of the house in that condition. Learned counsel submitted that if the charge sheet as it is, is considered, still there is nothing to show that present Petitioner instigated or participated in the act of burning of the victim or committed offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

The learned A.P.P. referred to the part of Dying Declaration of the victim, where she stated that mother in law used to do KIRKIR i.e. grumbling, on earlier occasions. The learned A.P.P. referred to the statements as available in record and stated that the Court may look into the same.

The complaint has been filed by one Anant Bapurao Ghule, who is father of the victim. If the complaint is perused, it is on the basis of what the complainant came to know after the incident. There is Dying Declaration of the victim, dated 10th June, 2013. The incident is also of the same date. If the Dying Declaration of victim Vaishali is perused, what she stated was that when she was at home at around 3.00 p.m. her husband came home having consumed liquor and started forcing himself on her and she was saying no. She claimed that her husband poured kerosene on her person and burnt her. It is her further statement that at the time of incident, her mother in law (present Petitioner) was at home but when the quarrel started, Petitioner had got up and gone away. Her Dying Declaration further shows that her husband himself put out the fire. Thereafter she was brought by ambulance by her father in law and others in the hospital at Ambajogai. In the further statement, the only mention is that the present Petitioner mother in law used to do KIRKIR i.e. grumbling.

The charge sheet contains statement of neighbour Dropadabai Khanderao Sonnar. If her statement is perused, she has stated that at the time of incident, present Petitioner and her son and daughter in law were at home. Dropadabai stated that she was waiting for her husband. She claimed that she was sitting at some distance from the house of the accused. According to the statement, present Applicant Kantabai came and sat near her and both of them were chitchatting. At such time, suddenly daughter in law of the present Petitioner came out shouting while she was burning and she was immediately followed by her husband and Dropadabai claimed that she as well as the Petitioner ran towards the victim, by which time the husband poured water on the person of victim. Her statement to Police further is that Petitioner, her husband and son of Petitioner took victim to hospital.

Other than this, there is First Information Report and there are statements of the relatives of the victim, whose statements are to the effect of learning about the incident and some of them stated that they had gone to the hospital and when they asked the victim, she stated that her husband had come home and for no reasons, started abusing her and beat her and poured diesel on her person and set her on fire. It appears that the victim told the relatives that the husband was saying that for purchasing truck she should get Rs.2,00,000/ from her father. Then there is statement that at the time of quarrel, the mother in law was also at home but that she had not intervened.

Even if the statements of relatives are perused, what appears is, regarding mother in law being at home when the quarrel took place. If those statements read with what victim herself stated in Dying Declaration and what neighbour Dropadabai stated, it would at the most indicate that the Petitioner was at home and when the quarrel started between the couple, Petitioner went out of the house and sat outside. The initial quarrel started by the Accused No. 1 aggravated into he pouring diesel on victim and burning her alive.

If the charge sheet at a whole is read, still it is difficult to spell out offence u/s 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as against the present Petitioner. Even for Section 498A, as far as regards present Petitioner is concerned, the Dying Declaration of victim merely stated that she was doing KIRKIR i.e. grumbling. To other relatives also she told about Accused No. 1 making demand of Rs.2,00,000/ and beating her. As such, it does not appear that there is prima facie material on the basis of which charge could be framed as far as regards the present Petitioner is concerned. If the proceedings is allowed to continue against this Petitioner, it would be abuse of process against her. The impugned order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge is not maintainable.

In the result, I pass following order:

O R D E R

(A) Present Revision Application is allowed.

(B) Impugned order dated 4th March, 2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge 2, Ambajogai below Exhibit 6 in Sessions Case No. 81 of 2013 is quashed and set aside.

(C) Present Petitioner Kantabai w/o Khanderao Nakade is discharged of the offence u/s 498A, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(D) The Sessions Case No. 81 of 2013 shall proceed as far as regards the Accused No. 1 Vyankati Khanderao Nakade is concerned, without being influenced by any of the above observations which are limited to decision of present Application.