Premsingh vs The State of Maharashtra

A.I.S. Cheema, J.—Appellant Premsingh Narayan Jadhav (hereafter referred as "accused") is original accused No.1 who along with his parents and brothers and their wives, faced trial in Sessions Case No.90 of 1999 in the Court of Sessions at Nanded for offence u/s 302, 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "I.P.C."). Accused Nos. 2 to 7 (hereafter referred as "other accused") came to be acquitted while the Appellant -accused came to be convicted of offence punishable u/s 498-A of I.P.C. and has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months; he has also been convicted for offence punishable u/s 304-B of I.P.C. and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for ten years. He came to be acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 302 of I.P.C. Being aggrieved, present Appeal has been filed.

Case of prosecution, in brief, is as under: -

(A) Complainant Rajusingh Pandurang Rathod (PW -3), resident of Wai Bazar, Tq -Mahur, Dist - Nanded, on 30th March 1999, filed First Information Report (Exhibit 40) with Mahur Police Station at Crime No.18 of 1999 at about 12.45 hours. In short, the complaint was: -

(I) His sister Sangita (now deceased hereafter referred as "victim") was married on 13th May 1998 to Appellant -accused Premsingh. Premsingh resides at Ramnagar, Tq -Kinwat, Dist -Nanded. F.I.R. refers to the other accused staying at Ramnagar. At the time of marriage, appellant -accused Premsingh was given cash Rs. 5000/-, one gold ring, one cot, one table fan and other articles. After marriage, 2 -3 4 times victim came to her parent''s place.

(II) In October 1998, victim Sangita came to place of the complainant and told them that her husband (Appellant -accused) and other accused were demanding Rs. 15,000/-, four Tola gold and colour T.V. and for the same, are abusing her and she had also been beaten. She had been brought and left in front of house by Appellant -accused and had been told that unless she gets the above articles, she should not come back. Thereafter for almost 1 1/2 months, the victim stayed at the place of her parents.

(III) Complainant and his father went to Bhousingh, the uncle of Appellant -accused and with his help a private meeting was called at the place of Sarpanch Nursing Jadhav. In the meeting, things were explained to the Appellant -accused and his family and they accepted to take back the victim. Next day father of complainant reached the victim 5 Sangita to her matrimonial home.

(IV) Eight days thereafter Pandurang Rathod, father of the complainant went to meet the victim. Even at that time, victim complained that her husband and in -laws were picking up quarrels on petty things as their demand for dowry had not been fulfilled. Pandurang made the victim understand.

(V) In last week of February 1999, complainant had gone, due to some death at the place of relative Chavan, at Ramnagar and at the time of last rites met the Appellant -accused who was there and with him went to his house. The victim had gone to field for work. Appellant - accused complained that the victim does not work and gives excuses of stomach ache. Complainant asked Appellant -accused to bring her to Wai and that he will spend for the treatment at Pusad. After 7 -8 days, Appellant -accused brought victim 6 to the place of complainant and the victim was shown to Dr. Papadkar at Pusad. After treatment she went with the Appellant -accused.

(VI) After another two days, the Appellant - accused went to the place of complainant and threatened that if his demand for articles is not met, he does not want to live with the victim and he wants to perform another marriage and the victim should be taken back. On next day, Pandurang Rathod (the father) went to the place of victim. Appellant -accused went away without talking to him and Pandurang made the daughter understand.

(VII) On 29th March 1999, in the evening at about 6.30 p.m. complainant was at his General Store at Wai. The Appellant -accused came there with his friend Vasant. He threatened complainant that the victim should be taken away immediately as he wants to perform another marriage and if she 7 is not taken, he will kill her and nothing is going to happen to him. At that time the father and brother of complainant also reached the shop. Complainant asked the Appellant -accused to reach his sister on next day. The father of complainant tried to make the Appellant -accused understand but he left in anger.

(VIII) On 30th March 1999, in the morning at 7.30 a.m. when complainant was at his shop at Wai, around 8.00 a.m. Sarpanch came there and informed that victim Sangita had expired. Complainant expressed that Appellant -accused and his family members must have killed her. Complainant sent his brother Vijay to Ramnagar to find out what happened. He went and later on informed that victim had expired and from her mouth and nose blood was coming out and that she had been killed.

. Thus, the F.I.R. was filed.

(B) After the offence being registered, P.S.I. Prakash Giri (PW -7) investigated the offence. He rushed to the spot and found the dead body in the house of the Appellant -accused. Panchas were called and Inquest Panchnama was carried out. Spot Panchnama was also done. The body was sent for postmortem. Medical Officer Venkatesh Dhat (PW -1) carried out the postmortem. Smell of insecticidal poison was detected in the stomach. Viscera was preserved and C.A. Report was called. After receipt of C.A. Report, final report was given that victim died due to poison. Investigating Officer Prakash Giri (PW -7) seized clothes of victim. Further investigation was done by A.P.I. Vilas Jadhav (PW -6). The accused were arrested. Statements were recorded. After investigation, charge -sheet came to be filed against the Appellant -accused and six other accused.

Charge was framed for Sections mentioned 9 above. Accused pleaded not guilty. The defence is of denial and accused claimed that victim had ailment of stomach and thus she could not tolerate the pain and committed suicide by consuming poison.

Prosecution brought on record evidence of seven witnesses. No defence evidence was led. After considering the matter, trial Court convicted Appellant -accused as mentioned above, while other accused came to be acquitted.

The present Appeal raises grounds and it has been argued for the Appellant -accused that the prosecution brought on record the evidence of PW -3 Rajusingh Rathod, PW -4 Pandurang Rathod who are brother and father of victim and PW -5 Datta Jadhav, who is from the same village as of the complainant, and they were all interested witnesses. No neighbour of the accused was examined to prove cruelty. The statement of PW -5 10 Datta Jadhav was recorded more than two months after the incident and he should have been disbelieved. He was along with the complainant when F.I.R. was filed but still his statement was recorded after two months. The victim had stomach problem and this can be seen from the evidence of PW -3 Rajusingh as victim was taken to the doctor at Pusad. There is no positive evidence of cruelty. There are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses. Alternatively, it is argued that the sentence is too harsh and the same needs to be reduced.

Against this, learned A.P.P. supported the Judgment of the trial Court and referring to the reasons recorded by the trial Court for convicting the Appellant -accused, the same have been adopted by the learned A.P.P.

The State has not filed Appeal against the acquitted accused or the Appellant -accused for 11 their acquittal u/s 302 of I.P.C. Although deceased died of poison and there were some ante -mortem injuries found on the person of the victim as recorded in the Inquest Panchnama Exhibit 37 and Postmortem Report Exhibit 31, trial Court observed that the final opinion was that victim died due to "cardio respiratory arrest due to insecticide poisoning" and there is no sufficient evidence to brand the accused as author of murder of Sangita by administering poison. The trial Court held (in Para 25 of the Judgment) that, at the most it could be said that the victim was subjected to assault and after assault she might have consumed poison. Thus, the trial Court held that homicidal death was not proved. State has accepted this and Appeal against acquittal u/s 302 of I.P.C. is not there.

Coming to the Appeal against conviction for offence u/s 304-B and 498-A of I.P.C., the evidence now needs to be considered.

Regarding cruelty, there is evidence of complainant PW -3 Rajusingh and his father PW -4 Pandurang. Both the witnesses supported by F.I.R. Exhibit 40, corroborate each other in material particulars. Evidence of these witnesses shows that at the time of marriage, Rs. 5000/- cash, one gold ring, one cot, one table fan and other articles were given as dowry to the Appellant - accused. It appears that the victim had come to the place of her parents around Diwali in October 1998 and she complained that she was being ill - treated on trifle grounds and accused were demanding Rs. 15,000/-, four Tola gold and one colour T.V. Complainant claims that this was told to him by the victim. Complainant has deposed that victim was being mentally ill -treated and even beaten and abused. According to complainant, victim was made to understand and she was reached to the house of the accused. Some days later, complainant''s father, Pandurang, visited the house 13 of the accused and found that the ill -treatment was continued. The evidence of PW -3, PW -4 as well as PW -5 Datta Jadhav is that private meeting was called at the place of Sarpanch of Ramnagar, in which the accused were made to understand. The Appellant -accused and other accused assured to treat the victim well. Evidence of PW -4 Pandurang shows that after some days of the meeting when he went to the house of his daughter, she again informed about similar ill -treatment and he again tried to convince the Appellant -accused and others. The Appellant -accused left the house in anger.

The evidence of complainant PW -3 Rajusingh further shows that in February he had gone to Ramnagar due to death of a relative. He happened to meet Appellant -accused there. They went to his house. Victim had gone to the field. Appellant -accused complained that the victim was not doing any work on the count of health. 14 Complainant asked Appellant -accused to bring the victim to Wai and they had come 7 or 8 days thereafter. Evidence is that complainant took the victim to doctor at Pusad, who opined that the victim did not have any disease but was having mental tension. The Appellant -accused was with the complainant at that time. Further evidence is that 7 -8 days thereafter, Appellant -accused went to the house of complainant and asked for cash and gold or else he wanted the victim to be taken back and expressed that he wanted to perform second marriage.

The evidence of PW -3 Rajusingh corroborated by PW -4 Pandurang, shows that on 29th March 1999, in the evening Appellant -accused along with one Vasant, had gone to the shop of complainant and repeated his demand for cash, gold and T.V., and added that he wanted to perform second marriage and wanted the victim to be taken back. Complainant deposed that he asked the 15 Appellant -accused to reach his sister back on the next day. Complainant deposed that Appellant - accused threatened that if the victim is not taken back, he will kill her. Evidence is that PW -4 Pandurang tried to explain to the Appellant - accused but in vain.

On 30th March 1999, the complainant came to know in the morning from Sarpanch of Ramnagar that the victim had died. Complainant sent his brother to verify and thereafter the F.I.R. came to be filed, which is proved at Exhibit 40.

PW -5 Datta Jadhav knows family of complainant and attended marriage and has deposed about the dowry; the demand later on; the meeting at the place of Sarpanch and when victim died, he had gone to see her.

PW''s 3 to 5 were cross -examined by the counsel for Appellant -accused. Some contradictions 16 and omissions were brought on record regarding details. Trial Court found (in Para 52 of its Judgment) the contradictions as not major contradictions so as to shake the credibility of the witnesses. I have also gone through the evidence and find that PW''s 3 to 5 supported by the F.I.R., corroborate each other for the material evidence regarding cruelty complained by the victim from time to time and PW -3 and PW -4 also had the misfortune of facing the Appellant - accused making demands and giving threats of consequences if his demands were not met. The F.I.R. itself claims that the demands were being made as dowry demands. PW -4 Pandurang has also deposed that the accused claimed that on failure to bring dowry they would not maintain the victim, was informed by the victim to him. The marriage took place on 13th May 1998 and in less than one year the incident took place on 30th March 1999. The evidence shows unlawful demands being made soon after marriage and the same have to be held 17 as demands for further dowry.

Arguments were raised before the trial Court and before me that PW''s 3 to 5 were interested witnesses. Trial Court rejected the arguments. It is natural for the victim to complain to her parents and brother. PW -5 Datta Jadhav is a third person and knows the family of the complainant and had also participated in the meeting at the place of Sarpanch for reconciliation. Cross -examination of PW -3 Rajusingh shows that the Appellant brought on record that Vijay, the brother of complainant when he had gone to verify if really the sister had expired, PW -5 Datta Jadhav was also with him. It was suggested to PW -3 that he had asked his brother and Datta and one Vilas to enquire from the accused as to whether they were ready to repay the expenses of marriage or not. Thus even accused does not deny that PW -5 Datta was associated with the family matters. PW -5 Datta Jadhav, due to his 18 relations with the family of the complainant, was in the know of affairs and only because the Investigating Officer was negligent in not promptly recording his statement, the witness cannot be ignored.

Only because people from the neighbourhood of the accused are not coming forward to depose, it does not mean that the evidence of PW''s 3 to 5 is not reliable. The evidence shows that inspite of adverse circumstances, the complainant and his father were rather convincing the victim to pull on. Although it is argued that the victim had problem of stomach ailment, there is no evidence available in that regard. What PW -3 deposed was that as Appellant -accused made complaint that the victim is complaining of stomach ailment, so he had asked the couple to come and he took them to Pusad and victim was shown to the doctor. F.I.R. mentions that the victim was given treatment and sent back. 19 In evidence complainant deposed that when the victim was taken for the treatment to the doctor, doctor said that she did not have any disease but was having only mental tension. PW -3 Rajusingh deposed (Cross -examination Para 11) that victim never complained of pain in stomach, but it was Appellant -accused who said so. Merely by this evidence, it cannot be concluded that the victim had ailment and that it was of such gravity that she would prefer to take her own life because of the ailment. The victim was at the place of Appellant -accused for more than ten months and the Appellant has not pointed out any document of treatment, to make his defence probable that the victim had serious ailment of stomach.

It has been argued on behalf of the Appellant -accused that PW -4 Pandurang deposed that the victim was not sent on the festivals of Sankrat, Akhadi, Panchami and Diwali. However, PW - 3 Rajusingh deposed that the victim had come at 20 the time of Diwali in the month of October 1998. The argument is that both these witnesses contradict each other on this count. I do not find that this is any material contradiction. The evidence needs to be read appropriately. What PW -3 deposed was that at the time of Diwali the sister had come to his house. It need not be read as on the day of Diwali. Even PW -4 what he deposed in cross -examination (Para 6) was that the victim was at his house for about 1 1/2 months after Diwali. Thus, the witnesses were speaking in relative terms of victim coming at the time of Diwali. Even trial Court (Para 59 of the Judgment) did not give any undue weight to such argument.

Trial Court in detail discussed such objections raised by Accused, and duly discussed and discarded them.

The evidence on record shows that even one day earlier to the day of incident, the 21 Appellant -accused had gone to the shop of the complainant and had threatened that the victim should be taken away. The evidence of PW -2 Dashrath Jadhav, the Panch of Inquest Panchnama, read with the Inquest Panchnama Exhibit 37, shows that the dead body of the victim showed that the ears had become blackish and there was swelling near the ears and even to the back side of the neck and it was blackish there. It seems, blood was oozing from nose and mouth. Evidence of PW -1 Venkatesh Dhat, medical officer, corroborates this and postmortem report also records such injuries. The victim was in the custody of the Appellant - accused and presence of such injuries are not explained by the Appellant -accused and in the background of evidence of PW''s 3 to 5, it must be held that the victim was given also physically ill -treatment. The harassment was to coerce the victim to meet unlawful demands of the Appellant - accused for articles he was asking. The death occurred within one year of marriage, otherwise 22 than under normal circumstances. Soon before the death the victim was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the Appellant -accused is clear from the evidence. The trial Court rightly came to the conclusion that offence u/s 498-A as well as 304-B of I.P.C. has been established.

I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings and order of the trial Court. The argument that the leniency in sentence needs to be shown, needs to be rejected. Young woman lost her life in the prime within one year of marriage due to the acts of the Appellant -accused. No leniency needs to be shown.

I, thus proceed to pass following order: -

O R D E R

(A) The Appeal is rejected. 23

(B) Appellant -accused shall surrender to his Bail Bonds and sentence imposed shall be carried out.

(C) The fees of Advocate Shri Garud, appointed Counsel for Appellant -accused, is quantified at Rs. 8000/- (Rupees Eight Thousand).