AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.B. Chaudhari, J—The State of Maharashtra preferred the instant Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2006, so also the victim filed Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2006 against the Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 2005 passed by learned First Ad Hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Buldana, in Sessions Case No. 64 of 2003 acquitting all the accused persons of offences under Sections 302, 201, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
FACTS:
Deceased Manisha, daughter of Subhash Kankate [PW 7], was married to Accused No. 1 - Pandurang in the year 1998. For three years, she was happy at her matrimonial home. But then Accused No. 1 - Pandurang started demanding Rs. 40,000-00 for purchasing a motorcycle. Subhash [PW 7] gave Rs. 25,000/- in presence of deceased Manisha and other accused. About two months before the death of Manisha, the balance amount of Rs. 15,000-00 was also paid by Subhash [PW 7]. However, the accused were giving physical and mental harassment to Manisha and she had disclosed about it to Subhash [PW 7] when she met him and also on telephone. About fifteen days before the incident, when Subhash [PW 7] met Manisha at Lonar, she was weeping and she disclosed that all the accused used to beat her for amount and were teasing and insulting her. She also disclosed that for the purpose of securing employment for Accused No. 3 Shivdas, they were demanding Rs. 50,000-00 with a threat that failure to fulfill the demand would result into her murder. Subhash [PW 7] returned to house, saying that he would arrange for the amount. However, on 28th January, 2003 at about 4.00 p.m., Dinkar Doifode of Lonar informed Subhash [PW 7] about the death of Manisha and he reached Lonar at about 6.30 p.m., and found the dead body of Manisha with a rope around her neck. He observed two injuries. Police visited the spot, drew Panchanama, got post-mortem done and finally on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. Trial was held. Trial Judge ultimately acquitted the accused persons of all the charges levelled against them under Sections 302, 201, 498A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Arguments :
In support of the appeal and the revision, learned APP and Mr. Kilor, learned counsel for the revision applicant, vehemently argued that the Trial Court committed an error in acquitting all the accused persons and, as a matter fact, there was no reason for the Trial Judge to give benefit of doubt to the accused persons. The counsel then argued that admittedly Manisha was in the custody of accused persons and, therefore, it was for them to explain as to how she died, particularly when there was a mark of ligature on upper third of neck and there was no sign of fracture anywhere. On the contrary, it clearly appeared that asphyxia secondary to pressure over respiratory passage was the opinion of the doctor about the probable cause of death and, therefore, the case was of murder rather than of suicide. The counsel, therefore, prayed for reversal of the impugned Judgment and Order of acquittal to one of conviction.
Per contra, learned Adv. Mr. Thakkar for respondent nos. 2 to 5 supported the impugned Judgment and Order and submitted that the parameters for interference in the appeals against acquittal are well settled and if the evidence and the Judgment is read, this Court should not interfere in the order of acquittal. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of both appeal and the revision.
We have heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. We have perused the entire record and the evidence. Learned Trial Judge has found that there was no evidence to show that the prosecution had proved the death to be homicidal. We have perused the said finding recorded by the learned Trial Judge. We have carefully seen the entire evidence to find out whether the said finding is legal, correct and proper, and we find that the prosecution need not prove with concrete evidence that the death caused was homicidal. On the contrary, the evidence clearly creates a doubt about Manisha committing suicide and, therefore, it was difficult to conclude that her death was homicidal. Following are the reasons given by the learned Trial Judge with which we are inclined to agree. We quote paragraph 36 from the Judgment of Trial Court, which reads thus:-
"36. It has been submitted for and on behalf of prosecution that injury nos. 2 and 4 mentioned in column no. 17 of postmortem report at Exh.70 are not challenged by the accused. True it is that the injury nos. 2 and 3 are not challenged by the accused but that by itself is not sufficient to show that the accused would have committed murder of deceased Manisha. From medical jurisprudence, I find that anoxia results from pressure on the large arteries of the neck, which prevents blood from going to the brain. I find that in homicidal hanging usually more than one person is involved in the act. When more than one person is involved in homicidal hanging certainly some resistance would have been made by deceased Manisha to save herself. In a case, where resistance has been offered, marks of violence on the body and marks of struggle or footprints of several persons or at near the place of occurrence are likely to be found. I find that except the injuries on the neck of deceased Manisha there were no other marks of struggle or violence on her body. Photo at Exh.50 shows the condition of the body of deceased Manisha. On that basis it cannot be said that resistance has been offered by deceased Manisha. I further find that there was no tampering of household articles to show that more than one person was involved in the act. Contents of spot Panchanama Exh.35 show that no other person was involved in the act. If any other person would have been involved in the act or homicidal hanging in that case, said person cannot go outside the middle room of the house by closing door from inside. On this basis, it is impossible to come to the positive conclusion that hanging was homicidal. Moreover, the ligature mark was oblique which found mostly in suicidal hanging. Strangulation mostly in homicidal cases. Ligature marks appear to be horizontal or transvers continuous round the neck. I further find that scratches, abrasions and bruizes on the face, neck and other part of the body were not present, whereas in a case of strangulation scratches, abrasions finger nail marks and bruizes on the face, neck and other part of the body are present. On this basis, it cannot be said that murder of deceased Manisha was committed by hanging."
We think that the above reasons given by the learned Trial Judge are logical and on a possible view of the entire matter. We, therefore, confirm the finding of the Trial Judge that the death was not homicidal.
Once having found that the death was not homicidal, the charge for murder is obviously not proved. The next question is about demand or the harassment and ultimately the offences under Sections 498-A, 201 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The first set of evidence is that demand of Rs. 40,000/- was made for purchasing a motorcycle and said demand was entirely fulfilled by Subhash [PW 7]. Even then there is no specific evidence as to what harassment or cruelty was done by the accused persons. Since there are no details coming anywhere in the evidence, namely whether Manisha was assaulted or tortured mentally in a particular manner, stating vaguely that she was harassed would not be enough. That apart, Subhash [PW 7] had then paid Rs. 40,000-00 for purchase of a motorcycle. The next aspect is the demand of Rs. 50,000-00 for securing employment for accused no. 3 - Shivdas. But then it has come on record that Accused No. 3 Shivdas was already in employment and that apart, there is no evidence to show as to whom, how the amount was to be paid and for which employment. Entire evidence is vague. That apart, the prosecution did not examine any neighbours to find out whether Manisha had disclosed her ill-treatment, harassment or cruelty to anybody when she was living for more than three years at the matrimonial house. That would have been a better evidence. In this connection, the Trial Court gave following reasons in para 45 of its Judgment with which again we agree. We quote para 45 as under:-
"45. Deceased Manisha was residing at her matrimonial home for about 3 years during which she had cordial relations with the neighbours to whom she would have made disclosure about the treatment given by the accused to her. It was therefore necessary for the prosecution to examine neighbours who would have thrown some light with regard to the treatment alleged to have been given by the accused. Evidence of the neighbours was absolutely necessary to lend assurance to claim made by the witnesses examined by the prosecution. Any kind of illtreatment caused to her by the accused must have been noticed by the neighbour or at least she would have disclosed to them, more particularly to women residing in the neighbourhood. Thus there is absolutely no positive evidence to establish that the accused were continuously giving illtreatment to deceased Manisha to fulfill their unlawful demand of amount."
Taking overall view of the matter, we find that the view taken by the Trial Judge on evidence is a possible view. There is no perversity. In the result, we make the following order:-
ORDER
[a] Criminal Appeal No. 104 of 2006 and Criminal Revision No. 74 of 2006 both are dismissed.
[b] Bail bonds shall stand cancelled.