The High Court of Bombay dismissed the criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court upheld the trial court's findings regarding ill-treatment, bigamy implications, and the suicide of the victim.
Appeal dismissed; Accused No.2 ordered to surrender within six weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
[NOT REPORTED]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 700 OF 2001.
1. Ramrao Dagdu Mane, ]
Age 30 yrs, Occ. Service. ] Appellants.
2. Parvatibai Ramrao Mane ] (original
Both r/o. Phalavan, ] Accused)
Tal.Malshiras, Dist.Solapur ]
No.1 At present in Yeroda ]
Central Prison, Yeroda, Pune ]
versus.
The State of Maharashtra ] Respondent.
Mr.T.E.Mane for the appellants.
Mr.A.M.Shringarpure, APP, for the State.
CORAM : D.G.DESHPANDE,J.
DATED : 15th July 2004.
ORAL ORDER
1. This is an appeal filed by the accused
against their conviction. Both the accused were
2
acquitted under Section 498A r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code, so also under Section 494 of the
Indian Penal Code. Both these accused have been
convicted under Section 306 r/w 34 of the Indian
Penal Code. Accused No.1 is sentenced to suffer
R.I. for seven years and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- in default, R.I. for nine months.
Accused No.2 is sentenced to suffer S.I. for two
years and to pay fine a fine of Rs.500/- in
default, S.I. for four months.
2. The prosecution case, in short, was that
Smt.Vandana Mane was the victim in this case.
She was the wife of accused No.1. Accused No.2
is the first wife of accused No.1. Vandana died
due to burning. Her father Laxman filed a report
against the accused. As per the report, the
accused No.1 was working as a watchman of the
canal. He was residing alone. Laxman wanted his
daughter Vandana to be married to accused No.1.
On inquiry accused No.1 told him that he had
earlier married with one Parvatibai but has given
divorced to her. Therefore, Vandana was married
to accused No.1 before 1 1/2 and 2 years of the
incident i.e. before her death. 5-6 months
before the incident, first wife Parvatibai came
3
to reside with accused No.1 with her children.
Thereafter both accused Nos. 1 and 2 started
ill-treating and beating Vandana. In the
meanwhile Vandana became pregnant from accused
No.1 and both the accused caused her abortion by
giving some medicine. Vandana was narrated all
her sufferings to her father. Accused wanted
Vandana to undergo family planning operation as
he did not want more children. Vandana refused
to do so. Therefore, her ill-treatment was
continued. Laxman - the father of Vandana took
help of three mediator Narayan, Tukaram and
Baliram to prevail upon the accused not to
ill-treat her daughter. But on 9.11.1993 he
learnt that Vandana was found dead and burnt at
the house of the accused. On this information,
an offence came to be registered against the
accused; Panchanama was prepared; matter was
investigated; Post-mortem was carried out and
the accused came to be tried for the aforesaid
offences and as well as bigamy and under Section
498A. The trial Court acquitted the accused
under Section 498A and also of bigamy i.e.
accused No.1 in that regard but convicted them as
stated above and hence this appeal.
4
3. Counsel for the accused firstly contended
that if at all according to Laxman - the father
of deceased Vandana, accused No.1 had represented
that he had married earlier with one Parvati and
had obtained a divorce from her, then it was
obligatory upon the prosecution to prove that
Vandana was legally wedded wife of accused No.1.
That aspect of the matter has been considered by
the trial Court at length. The trial Court came
to the conclusion that accused No.1 could not be
held guilty of bigamy i.e. his marriage with
Vandana while his first marriage with Parvati was
subsisting. Acquittal of the accused under
Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code does not
give him any benefit so far as offences under
Sections 498A and 306 are concerned. Vandana was
married to accused No.1. She was living with
him. They were being treated and regarded as
husband and wife. It is true that in his
statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
accused No.1 has denied that Vandana was married
with him. But there is no explanation why an
unmarried girl started living with accused No.1.
Nothing is stated by the accused in this regard
though this fact is within personal knowledge of
accused No.1. There is no defence that Vandana
5
was keep, mistress or concubine of accused No.1.
No where in his statement under Section 313 or
during the cross examination of the witnesses any
such defence is taken. Laxman (PW.1) - the
father of Vandana is cross examined at length.
Suggestions were put to him to the effect that
Vandana was not married to accused No.1. Apart
from this, there is nothing on record to show or
nor any explanation was given by accused No.1 as
to what was his relationship with Vandana and why
she was staying with him as a wife. The finding
of the trial Court regarding accused No.1 entered
into second marriage while his first marriage was
subsisting, though correct, cannot help accused
No.1 while he is facing charge of offences under
Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
Evidence of Vandana’s father Laxman and her
brother Sugriv (PW2) is sufficient to come to the
conclusion that Vandana was married to accused
No.1 and after her marriage she was living with
him for about ten years. The factum of marriage
is also supported by four coloured photographs of
Vandana and accused No.1 taken at the time of
their marriage as per Panchanama (Exhibit 15).
4. Second crucial question is about the
6
death of Vandana and there is no dispute that
Vandana committed suicide. This aspect of the
matter is also properly considered by the trial
Court. No defence is raised by the accused that
Vandana was died due to accidental death. It is
not the case of the accused or the prosecution
that she was murdered. She died because of 100%
burn injuries; she died in the house of the
accused. Panchanama of scene of offence reveals
that she died in the second room of the house of
accused which is admeasuring 10 x 8 ft. where
household articles were kept. There was kerosene
can with little kerosene in it; match box was
lying there; she died during night; a lantern,
which is called in Marathi as Panti, was also
found. Inquest panchanama supports the
percentage of burns or existence of percentage
and as rightly held by the trial Court within a
very short distance from the house of the accused
where the dead body of Vandana was found i.e.
within 5 ft. distance there was a canal and
water was flowing there through. If it was a
case of accident and Vandana got fire at night,
then attempts to save her ought to have been
there. In the absence of such defence coming
from the accused, the trial Court has rightly
7
concluded that Vandana committed suicide.
5. Third aspect of the matter is about
ill-treatment to Vandana and abetment of suicide.
In that regard, the trial Court relied upon the
evidence of Laxman (PW.1) and Sugriv (PW.2) and
also upon the FIR lodged by Laxman. Evidence of
these two witnesses was fully inspiring
confidence.
. It was tried to be contended by the
advocate for the accused that P.W.1 and P.W.2 are
the only witnesses for the prosecution and they
are related to Vandana and looking to the span of
so called marital life of ten years, there are no
grounds or reasons for Vandana to cause abetment.
This argument was also advanced before the trial
Court. But same came to be rejected because the
evidence of P.W.Nos. 1 and 2 is consistent;
corroborates each other and specific instances of
ill-treatment have been given by these two
witnesses.
5. According to both these witnesses (PW
Nos.1 and 2) everything went on smoothly till
accused No.2 came to reside with accused No.1.
8
Accused No.2 was the first wife of accused No.1
and in that regard accused No.1 had made false
representation to the father of Vandana before
his marriage that he had obtained divorce from
his first wife i.e. accused No.2 Parvati.
According to P.W.Nos. 1 and 2 there was no
problem between Vandana and accused No.1 before
Parvati (Accused No.2) came to reside with
accused No.1 and, after her arrival ill-treatment
to Vandana was started. At that time Vandana was
pregnant. But accused Nos. 1 and 2 insisted for
abortion. Vandana refused to concede their
request and thereafter she was ill-treated and
severely beaten. She was also told that both of
them, i.e. accused Nos.1 and 2, had two children
and they do not want any more issue. Vandana
narrated all this to her parents and P.W.1 Laxman
sought intervention of Tukaram, Baliram and
Narayan to stop the ill-treatment. But in spite
of this pursuation, ill-treatment was not
stopped. In his report, Laxman has stated that
Vandana committed suicide because she was fade up
by the ill-treatment meted out by the accused
Nos. 1 and 2 to compel her not to have any issue
and to undergo family planning operation. P.W.2
has given similar evidence. He has also stated
9
that Vandana was forced to undergo for abortion
at the instance of accused Nos. 1 and 2.
6. Counsel for the accused contended that
evidence of these witnesses is vague; they have
not given any particulars about the date of their
disclosure and; the persons, who acted as
interveners, have not been examined by the
prosecution. That aspect of the matter was also
considered by the trial Court and it was held
that witnesses are villagers and it cannot be
expect from them that they should give evidence
with all these technical details or with
reference to the dates and events.
7. It was also contended by the advocate for
the accused that there was a delay in lodging the
FIR. But I do not find any material to accept
this contention. P.W.1 Laxman has stated in his
evidence that he received message of Vandana’s
death that she committed suicide; next day he
went to Phalvani Chowky i.e. the house of
accused and saw her body; then Vandana’s body
was shifted to the hospital for autopsy and then
on that day itself he lodged the report. It will
be therefore clear that within an hour of knowing
10
about unnatural death of Vandana the FIR was
lodged by her father Laxman. There is absolutely
no delay in lodging the FIR. This is, therefore,
a case where the prosecution has fully succeeded
in proving the offences against the accused. The
trial Court has rightly came to the conclusion
about the guilt of the accused. No interference
is called for. Hence the following order :-
:ORDER:
1. This appeal is dismissed.
2. Accused No.1 is in jail. Accused No.2 is
on bail. She should surrender within six weeks
from today. Thereafter her bail bond shall stand
cancelled.
15/07/2004 [D.G.DESHPANDE]
JUDGE.
**************
Ramrao Dagdu Mane
Parvatibai Ramrao Mane
The State of Maharashtra
D.G. Deshpande
As recorded by the court registry
3 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court