The State of Maharashtra Vs Shri Shivaram S/O. Parasharam Mang

1.	By	this appeal	ag	ains	t acq	uittal	the	Appell	ant-State	of
Maharashtra	has	taken	excep	tion	to	the	Judgm	ent	and	Order
dated	29th	November	1988		passed	by	the	Additio	nal	Sessions
Judge,	Sangli.	By	the	im	pugned	Judgm	ent	and	Order	, the
Respondent-a	ccused	was	acquit	ted	of	the	o	ffences		punishable

¶15

under Section 302, 304(B) and 498-A the of the Indian Penal

¶16

Code.

¶17

2.	The case	of	the	prosecu	tion	is	th	at on		21st F	ebruary	1988
at	about 9.30		p.m.	the	Re	spondent		committed		murder	of	his
wife	Mrs.Usha	by	p	ushing	her	in	the	well	s	ituated	in	the
court	yard of		Marathi	Boys’		School		at Hing	a	ngaon	and	thereby
committed	the	of	fence	punisha	ble	und	er	Section		302	of	Indian
Penal	Code (herein	after	ref	erred	to	I.P.C	.).	T	h	e case	of	the

¶18

2 -

¶19

prosecution is that the Respondent-accused subjected his wife to cruelty and harassment from time to time from the date of her marriage till the date of death with a view to coerce her to meet his unlawful demand of a golden ring, cash amount and other valuables. Further allegation against the Respondent is that he subjected his wife to cruelty as she failed to meet his demands. In the alternative the Respondent-accused was charged with committing dowry death of his wife thereby

¶20

committing an offence punishable under Section 304(B) of

¶21

I.P.C.

¶22

3.	The prose	cution	examined 11 witnesses. P.W.No.1	Sudhakar
Janardan	Mahamuni	is	the Panch witness to the	inquest
panchnama	and	the	scene of offence panchnama.	P.W.No.2
Pandurang	Krishna	Kadam	is the alleged eye witness.	P.W.No.3
Parshuram	Krishna	Jadhav	is the complainant who is t	he father
of	deceased.	P.W.No	.4 Vishnu Bapu Dhamale also claims	to be
an eye	witness.	P.W	.No.5 Vishnu Mahadeo Jadhav is th	e person
who	brought out	the	dead body of the deceased from	the well.
P.W.No.6-S	uresh J	agannath	Satam is the Panch witness to	the
panchnama	at	Exh.23	which records the recovery of	certain
letters	which	are	articles No.14 and 15. P.W.No.7	Shahaji
Shrirang	Waidende	is	the rickshaw driver of the	rickshaw
which	was hired	by	the accused for travelling	up to
Chinchani.	P.W.N	o.8	Shankar Vithoba Ware is the	Police
Constable	attached		to Kadegaon Police station who	arrested
the	accused.	P.W	.No.9 Khanderao Tulshiram Vidhate i	s the

¶23

3 -

¶24

Investigating	Officer	who	carried	out	a part	of	the
investigation.		P.W.No.1	0-Chandrakant	Keshav	Pawar	is	the

¶25

Deputy Superintendent of Police who took over further investigation.

¶26

4. Dr.Shaikh the	learned A.P.P. submitted tha	t the	evidence
of P.W.No.3 Pars	huram as well as P.W.No.2	Pandurang	and
P.W.No.4 Vishnu	clearly establishes the guilt of	the	accused
? He submit	ted that there was no cogent reaso	n to	discard
the testimony of	these three witness. He	submitted	that
P.W.Nos.2 and 4	had seen the accused committing	the	offence
by pushing his wife	in the well. He submitted	that th	ere was
no reason for	P.W.No.2 to depose	against	the
Respondent-accused.	He submitted that the conduct	of	the
Respondent as	reflected from the version of the	said	three
witnesses clearly	prove that the demand was ma	de by	the
Respondent-accused f	or clothes and gold ring.	He	submitted
that when the	Respondent was offered gift	by	his
father-in-law in	the marriage ceremony of youn	gest sis	ter of
the deceased, he	refused to accept the same on	the	ground
that the gold	ring was not offered to him	and	tailoring
charges for the	clothes were not offered to him.	He	pointed
out that the	Respondent left the marriage pendol	by	asking
his wife to accompan	y him. He was in drunk co	ndition a	nd was
not in a position	to ride the motor cycle. He	submitt	ed that
P.W.No.2 Pandurang	and P.W.No.4 Vishnu are the	eye	witnesses
to the incident	and their testimony proves the g	uilt of	the

¶27

4 -

¶28

accused beyond reasonable doubt. None appeared for the

¶29

Respondent though the Respondent is served.

¶30

5. In the light of the submissions wh	ich are ma	de we	will
have to consider the evidence on record.	On	21st	February
1988 there was a marriage of the young	est daughter	of	the
complainant-P.W.No.3 Parshuram and the a	ccused had	come	to
the marriage along with his wife and	children.		P.W.No.3
Parshuram is the father-in-law of the acc	used.	The	accused
refused to accept the gifts tendered to	him by	saying	that
the clothes were not tailored and he was	not offer	ed a	gold
ring. He, therefore, left the pendol of	marriage.	He	took
his wife and children along with him.	He tried	to rid	e on
his motor cycle but as he was in dru	nk condition,	he	fell
down and therefore, he left his motor	cycle there	and	took
his wife and children by road. On th	e way to	the	village,
near the school he pushed his wife into	a well.	The	medical
evidence shows that the deceased expired	as a	resul	t of
asphyxia due to drowning. The case of	the accused	is	that in
the marriage ceremony the other	sons-in-law	of	the
complainant were offered gifts and theref	ore the	wife	of the
Respondent-accused had a quarrel with th	e father	i.e.	the
complainant as she felt insulted that her	husband	was	not
called and given gifts. The further case	of the	accused	is
that he had a quarrel with the	complainant	whe	n the
complainant asked him as to why he had	come to	the	marriage
without invitation. When the accused w	as leaving	the	place

¶31

5 -

¶32

he	was	given	a beating	in	the	pendol	and	near	the	school	by
the	co	mplainant	and	his	rela	tives.	Aft	er	seeing	the	beating
given	to	the	accused,		his	wife jum	ped	into	the	well	in
protest.		C	onsidering	the	c	ontroversy	inv	olved	in	the	appeal

¶33

the only question which is to be decided is whether the

¶34

accused had pushed his wife into the well.

¶35

6.	The compl	ainant described	in	his evidence the inc	ident in
the	pendol of	the marriage.	He	stated that the	accused
refused	to ac	cept the gift	offered	to him. He stated	that
when	the gift	was offered	to the	accused, he went	to the
extent	of remo	ving his cloth	es.	He threw away th	e gift
articles	given to	him. The	relatives	who were present	in the
pendol	tried to	persuade the	accused	. However, the	accused
asked	his wif	e not to stay	there	and leave the pendol	with
him.	He st	ated that the	accused,	his wife and child	ren took
a	seat on t	he motor cycle.	The	accused started the	motor
cycle	but as h	e was in a	drunk	condition, he fell down	from
the	motor cycle.	His wife	became	unconscious as a	result of
fall	from the	motor cycle.	She	regained consciousnes	s at
9.00	p.m.	when the accuse	d asked	her to accompany him	and
not	to accept	any gift.	The	complainant told the	Respondent
not	to take	his daughter	alongwith	him and suggested	that
they	should le	ave next day	mornin	g. The Respon	dent-accused
asked	the com	plainant not	to inter	fere. The Respond	ent took
his	wife and	children with	him by	leaving his motor	cycle
there.	Certain	omissions have	been	brought on record.	One

¶36

6 -

¶37

of the complainant	import to	ant omissions is regarding state before the police	failure of the that after the fall
from the	motor	cycle the deceased became	unconscious in the
pendol.	The	complainant admitted that he	was not on talking
terms with	the	Respondent and the Respond	ent had not attended
the marriages	of	his other daughters.	Thus, the relationship
between	the co	mplainant and the accused	was strained. It is
also an	admitte	d position that the bride	i.e. the daughter
of the	complai	nant had been to the accu	sed for one month
prior to	the	marriage and she was proper	ly treated by the
accused.	She	was given a silver chain	and clothes and was
taken for	a	round to City of Mumbai by	the accused. The
complainant	admitte	d that for the mar	riage ceremony the
accused h	ad	brought two water barrels.	P.W.No.2 Pandurang
was also	present	at the time of marriage i	n the pendol. He
deposed ab	out	the dispute which took place	at the time of
offering gi	fts	to the accused. He how	ever, did not depose
about the	incide	nt of accused trying to l	eave the pendol by
his motor	cycl	e and his wife falling do	wn from the motor
cycle and	becom	ing unconscious. He stated	that at the time
of the com	mission	of offence he was sitting	in the school and
he saw the	accuse	d with a child with him.	He stated that the
accused held	the	arms of the deceased and	pushed her into the
well. He	sta	ted that he reached the	well and started
shouting	when	other persons gathered there.	He stated that
in the	light	of the torch the persons	present were looking
for the	deceased	in the well and after so	me time a petromax

¶38

7 -

¶39

lamp	was	brought	. At that time, the body of	the	deceased
could	not	be	traced. P.W.No.4 Vishnu Dhamale	was	also
present	in	the p	endol of the marriage. He also	stated	that
after	the mea	ls he	was asked to sit in the nearby	school.	He
stated	that	the	lights were available there. While	he	was
sitting	in th	e scho	ol along with Pandurang and two	oth	ers, he
saw	the	accused	passing near the school along with	his	wife
and	two	children.	He stated that he saw the	accused	pushing
his	wife	into	the well. For appreciating the	evidence	of
these	two	witne	sses it is necessary to refer to the	map	of
the	place	of the	offence on record at Exh.6.	Both	P.W.Nos.2
and 4	were	sitting	in a room bearing room No.2 o	f the	school.
The	map	disclosed	that the distance between the ro	om	No.2 in
the	school	and	the well is 100 feet. The dista	nce	between
the	office	and the	well is 55 feet. There is an	open	ground
between	the	school	building and the well. Both the	map	and
the	scene	of of	fence panchnama did not show any	exist	ence of
lamp	in	between	the ground and school building.	From	the
evidence	of	P.W.No	.2 it appears that there was no	lamp	post
near	the	well	and therefore he stated that the	search	was
made	by usin	g a	torch and later on a petromax lam	p wa	s called
for	search	of the	body. The incident has taken	place	after
9.00	p.m.	The	witnesses had deposed that there wa	s a	light
inside	the	school.	However, that does not mean	that	the
ground	in	front	of the school was lighted. Both	the	said
witnesses	have	not	deposed that they apprehended	the	accused,
even	after	they	saw the incident. It is very	difficult	to

¶40

8 -

¶41

believe that from the distance of 100 feet in the darkness of

¶42

the night they could see the accused pushing his wife in the well.

¶43

7.	It is	also	t	o		be borne in	mi	nd that	it	is not the	c	ase of
the	compl	ainant		t	h	at there was	a	ny fig	ht	or quarrel		between
the	accused	and				his wife.	T	he qua	rrel	was between		the
accused	an	d the				complainant.	Eve	n in	the	said quarrel,		the
wife	appears	to	h	a	v	e taken the	side	of	the	Respondent.		It is
not	the	case		o	f	the complai	nant	that	the	wife was		reluctant
to	leave	the	p	e	n	dol with accu	sed.	Apa	rt	from the fact		that
there	was	no				direct evidence	of	the	acc	used pushing hi	s	wife
into	the	well,				the absence	of	any	evid	ence regarding		any
cruel	treatm	ent				given by the	Re	spondent	to	his wife in		the
past	makes	th	e			prosecution	story	vulner	able.	It is		not
proved	tha	t the				Respondent was	m	aking	any	demand in th	e	past
to	his	wife.				It is also	no	t esta	blishe	d that the R	e	spondent
was	ill-tre	ating		h	is	wife as	the	alleged		demands made b		y the
Respond	ent	were		n		ot met. It	is	prove	d	that one month		before
the	incident		t	h	e	sister of	the	deceased	w	ho got married		on
the	date	of	t	h	e	incident hap	pily	stayed	in	the family	o	f the

¶44

accused. In fact the accused gave a gift to her and took her around the city of Bombay.

¶45

In this view of the matter it is very difficult to come to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt. It must be kept in mind that this

¶46

9 -

¶47

appeal	is		again	st order		o	f ac	quittal.		Mere	ly	because	some
other	view		is	possible	to		be	taken	on	the	ba	sis of	the
evidenc	e	on	record	is no		gr	ound	to	interf	ere.	It	cannot	be
said	that	the	view	taken	by		the	lear	ned	Sessi	ons	Judge is	not
a	possible		view	on t	he		basis	of	the	ev	idence.	In	the
circums	tances,		no	interfer	ence		is	call	ed	for	in	the	appeal

¶48

against acquittal. Hence, the Appeal is dismissed with no

¶49

order as to costs.

¶50

( SMT.RANJANA DESAI,J. )

¶51

( ABHAY S.OKA,J. )

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Shivaram S/O. Parasharam Mang

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

The State of Maharashtra v. Shri Shivaram S/O. Parasharam Mang

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The State of Maharashtra Vs Subhash Aba Bodke and Another.

Shri Vijay Vishnu Gangurde and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra

Baban Shekha Bidgar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Popat Anna Nil Vs the State of Maharashtra

State vs. Mohd. Makbul Mod. Ismile Vs Mahamad Makbul Mahamad Ismile.

State vs. Mohd. Makbul Mod. Ismile Vs Mahamad Makbul Mahamad Ismile.