The State of Maharashtra vs Ramrao and Others

T.V. Nalawade, J.—The appeal is filed against judgment and order of Criminal Appeal No. 78/1993, which was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. The Sessions Court has acquitted the respondents of the offences punishable under sections 498-A, 306 and 34 of Indian Penal Code. The respondents were convicted and sentenced by Assistant Sessions Judge, Aurangabad for these offences. Both the sides are heard. Original papers are perused by this Court.

In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows:-

Deceased Mangalabai was daughter of complainant Aasaram Raut. Aasaram is resident of Rahimabad, Taluka Sillod and at the relevant time, he was working as a teacher in Pangari. Mangalabai was given in marriage to accused No. 3 - Ganesh on 15.5.1992. Accused No. 3 is resident of Mondha, Tahsil Sillod, District Osmanabad. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are the parents of accused No. 3 and accused No. 4 is brother of accused No. 3. All the accused were living in joint family in Mondha.

After marriage, deceased went to matrimonial house and as per customs, Rukminibai, sister of complainant, went with Mangalabai to give company for few days. After two days of the marriage, complainant sent his brother Laxman to bring Mangalabai back to the parents house as per custom. When Laxman brought back Mangalabai, he informed to the complainant that Ganesh was saying that Mangalabai is not good looking and he does not like Mangalabai. Laxman further disclosed that Ganesh had said that he wanted Rs. 5,000/- and one colour T.V. set from the complainant. Complainant ignored this demand by saying that the husband and in-laws generally make such demands.

As per custom, Ganesh was called to the house of complainant after few days of the marriage to attend Satyanarayan Pooja. The family members of complainant also went to Mondha and they stayed there for few days after Satyanarayan Pooja. After that, Mangalabai again visited the house of complainant. She disclosed that Ganesh was asking her to bring Rs. 5,000/- and colour T.V. set from the complainant. She disclosed that her husband, her in-laws and brother of husband were harassing her and they were giving beating to her. She disclosed that they had given threat of life to her if their demand was not met with. Even Ganesh directly made demand of Rs. 5,000/- and colour T.V. set from the complainant. Complainant promised to meet this demand after Diwali festival.

On 11.6.1992 Mangalabai was sent back to matrimonial house. She was taken back by her father-in-law as per custom. Five-six days after 11.6.1992 complainant visited the house of accused - Laxman from Sillod and there he learnt that Mangalabai was happy in matrimonial house.

The incident took place on 24.6.1992. Message was given to the complainant by the family of accused that she was serious. When he went there, he saw the dead body. As there was aforesaid demand, complainant felt that deceased had committed suicide due to harassment given by the accused and he gave report to Sillod Police Station. Crime at Cr. No. 127/1992 came to be registered for aforesaid offences and for the offence u/s 304-B of I.P.C.

Post mortem was conducted on the dead body. Viscera was sent to C.A. Office. Insecticide poison was detected in the viscera. During investigation statements of relatives of complainant came to be recorded and the charge-sheet came to be filed for aforesaid offences.

To the charge, all the accused pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined six witnesses in the trial Court. The trial Court believed the witnesses. As accused No. 4 - Laxman was residing at Sillod, separate from other accused due to his service, accused No. 4 came to be acquitted by trial Court. Other accused were convicted. In the appeal filed in Sessions Court, they came to be acquitted by Sessions Court. The Sessions Court has not believed the witnesses. In view of the period for which there was cohabitation and other circumstances, the Sessions Court has held that the offence punishable u/s 498-A of I.P.C. is not proved. It is observed that other possibility for committing suicide cannot be ruled out and so, the respondents are acquitted of the other offence also.

The evidence of complainant (PW 2) and other witnesses show that Mangalabai died within one and half months of the marriage. Out of this period, she lived in the house of her parents for more than 20 days. The evidence of complainant shows that even during the Mango season, she stayed with her parents for 10-15 days continuously. She was sent back to parents house as per custom on every occasion and the accused persons never prevented her from going to the house of her parents. All the customary rites and functions were arranged by the accused and also by the family of the complainant. The husband never avoided to visit the house of his in-laws. The message about the incident was given by the family of the accused to complainant immediately. They also approached police after the incident. It appears that in the early hours of 24.6.1992, they noticed that Mangalabai was dead. She had probably consumed poison on the night between 23rd and 24th. No neighbour of the accused is examined and all the witnesses examined are interested witnesses. These circumstances need to be kept in mind at the time of appreciation of evidence given by the complainant and his relatives.

The defence has not disputed that Mangalabai died due to consumption of insecticide. There is evidence of doctor and there is C.A. report to show that death took place due to insecticide. The evidence on record shows that accused persons do not own agricultural land and they are working as barber, having their hair cutting shop in the village. The evidence of complainant during cross examination and also the mention in the complaint show that accused No. 4 was living in Sillod due to his service. Thus, on the day of incident accused No. 4 was not there, but he was also involved in the case. No investigation was made by police to find out as to how and from where the deceased procured the insecticide, when accused are not agriculturists. These circumstances also need to be kept in mind at the time of appreciation of evidence of witnesses. Suggestions are given by the defence to prosecution witnesses that Mangalabai had no intention to cohabit with the accused for some reason and due to that she committed suicide. Though these suggestions are denied, the fact remains that for most of the period after the marriage Mangalabai was staying with her parents.

It was arranged marriage. The evidence of complainant and other witnesses show that the accused had seen the deceased atleast twice and the husband had approved her for marriage. It is not the case of complainant that at the time of settlement of marriage, something was demanded by giving excuse that Mangalabai was black in complexion or her tooth were not properly arranged and she was looking ugly. As it was arranged marriage and Mangalabai was approved by Ganesh, it does not look probable that immediately after the marriage, accused Ganesh started saying that she was not liking Mangalabai. On the contrary, Ganesh took her to religious places after the marriage and all the ceremonies were performed and attended by Ganesh. It is not version of complainant that Ganesh had directly expressed to him that he was not liking Mangalabai. Complainant has given evidence that his sister, Rukminibai, had informed him about the incident, wherein the accused were saying that Mangalabai was black in complexion and so they should pay Rs. 5,000/- and colour T.V. set. This is not consistent with the contents in the complaint, as in the complaint there is the mention that the disclosure was made by brother of the complainant. Rukminibai (PW 3) has given evidence about such incident and she has stated in evidence that she informed about the incident to complainant. Her evidence shows that after her return to the house of complainant, Laxman had gone to matrimonial house of Mangalabai. Laxman (PW 4) has given evidence that it was told to him by husband of Mangalabai that Mangalabai was black in complexion and he wanted cash amount of Rs. 5,000/- and T.V. set from the complainant. He has exaggerated the things by saying that threat was given by Ganesh that he would desert Mangalabai or do something to her, if his demands were not met with. Sushila (PW 5), mother of the deceased, has given evidence that Rukminibai (PW 3) narrated the incident, which had taken place in the house of accused on the 2nd day of the marriage. She has given evidence that Mangalabai also disclosed her that there was demand of Rs. 5,000/- and colour T.V. set. She has also tried to say that they had given promise to meet this demand at the time of Diwali festival.

The version of Rukminibai (PW 3) that she overheard the conversation which was going on amongst the accused on the second day of the marriage does not appear to be probable in nature. It appears that in one room the persons from the family of the accused and the relatives of the complainant were sleeping. It is not her version that they had conveyed her demand to her. In any case, the story given by the interested witnesses do not appear to be probable in nature. Accused No. 3 was already having a colour T.V. set in his house. As it was settled marriage and accused No. 3 had approved the deceased for marriage, it does not look probable that such demand was made subsequent to marriage. If the complainant and his family had really promised to meet the demand at Diwali festival, there was no reason for the accused to give ill-treatment to the deceased. In any case, the stay of the deceased in the house of the accused was so short that there was no possibility of giving ill-treatment to the deceased as defined u/s 498-A of I.P.C. It is already discussed that investigation was not made to find out as to how the deceased procured the bottle of insecticide. The evidence of Police Officer shows that after registration of A.D., some statements were recorded. Those statements were not brought before the Court. The neighbours of the accused are not examined. It appears that the trial Court had given much emphasis on so called conduct. The death took place in the night time and probably insecticide was consumed in the night time by deceased. Thus, there was no opportunity for the accused to know about the consumption of the insecticide. In view of all the circumstances, the appellate Court has acquitted the respondents. This Court sees no reason to interfere in the decision given by the first appellate Court. The appeal stands dismissed.