Criminal Appeal challenging conviction for murder and cruelty against a husband. The Court upheld the murder conviction but set aside the cruelty conviction due to lack of reliable evidence.
The conviction and sentence under Section 498-A IPC set aside. Conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC upheld.
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
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 410 OF 2003
Ramesh Shankar Landage ] Age: 27 years, Occ: Mason, R/o. Khanota, ] Tal. Daund, Dist. Pune (At present in ] District Prison Baramati) ] ...Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra ] ...Respondent
Mr. Milind Deshmukh for the Appellant
Mr. D.P. Adsule, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State.
CORAM : B ILAL NAZKI and A.R. JOSHI, JJ. RESERVED ON : 31-8-2009 PRONOUNCED ON: 15-9-2009
JUDGMENT (Per Bilal Nazki, J.) :-
2
November 9, 2006. The accused was in custody. He was not represented.
payment of fine.
3
tried. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses.
the prosecution has miserably failed in establishing the guilt of the accused, and as such, he deserved acquittal.
the deceased with Ramesh, accused, was performed on 8th May, 1999. They continued to have a happy married life for two months. Thereafter, the deceased used to mention about the ill-treatment and harassment by the appellant and the in-laws. On 5th and 12th March, 2000, the complainant visited the marital
home of Anita, and the deceased told him about the harassment from her husband. On 26th March, 2000 at about 3.15 p.m., the complainant visited the house of the deceased. At that time, the deceased told the complainant that the appellant needed an amount of Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- to get a job in police, and the
4
appellant had told her that if the amount was not brought from her parents, she would suffer the consequences.
received message from Satav Guruji that there was something wrong at Khanota and the complainant was called at Khanota. Accordingly, he along with his mother and uncle reached Khanota. On enquiry, he was told by the brother of the appellant-accused
that Anita had died due to burns. Thereafter, he approached the police station.
the deceased. At the time of the incident, he was serving as a teacher. His brothers are looking after the agricultural land. He knew the accused persons. The deceased was married to accused No.1 on 8th May, 1999. At the time of marriage, Rs.5,000/- were given as dowry. A cot, bedding and household utensils were also given. After the marriage, Anita started to reside
at the matrimonial house with the accused. Accused No. 2 and 5
5
are the brothers of accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 and 4 are his parents. They were all living jointly. After marriage, Anita along with her husband, Ramesh, used to visit his home for occasions like festivals. The spouses were happy for two months. After two months, whenever Anita visited his house, she told him that all the accused subjected her to cruelty and were making demands for dowry. They subjected her to cruelty by starving her. Her in-laws abused her and her husband beat her. As accused No.1 was well-educated, the witness also told him that he would make efforts to get a job for him. At that time, accused No. 1 was doing masonry work. About 8 days prior to Sankrant in year 2000, Anita along with her husband, Ramesh, came to his house. Anita told him that the father, mother and brothers of accused No.1 quarrelled with her and told Anita that she should bring money from her maternal home for household expenses and for that purpose, they had driven out both of them from the house. He advised Ramesh to settle his family disputes in the house. Accused No.1, however, along with his wife, stayed in his house for about 1½ months. Accused No.1, during this period, did
6
construction work of the complainant’s uncle’s house. Accused No.3 also visited, during this period, the house of the complainant, and threatened the complainant as to why accused No. 1 was staying in his house. Accused No.2 also came to his house. Thereafter, the witness asked accused No. 1 to go to Khanota along with his wife. That day, Suresh went along. On the next day, accused No.1 and Anita prepared to go to Khanota. At that time, Ramesh said that he had been deceived when he married Anita. He had wanted to marry a girl from his relative. Thereafter, the witness persuaded his sister to go with accused No. 1. He visited his sister in Village Khanota on Sundays i.e. 5th and 12th March, 2000. Anita informed him that there is no change in the behaviour of her husband, father-in-law, mother-in-law and brothers-in-law. She complained that she was being abused and was not provided food and accused No.1 had beaten her, and cash amount was demanded. At that time, he advised her not to end her life. On 26th March, 2000 also, he visited his sister. Wives of brothers of accused No.1 were present in the house. Anita told him that accused No.1 had gone to the village for
7
masonry work. Anita told him that next month, there was recruitment of police, and her husband had asked her to bring Rs. 25,000/- to 30,000/-, otherwise accused No. 1 had said that “Tuze khai Khare Nahie”. The witness went to Ramesh in the village, and while chit-chatting, Ramesh told him that there was recruitment next month on the 10th , and for recruitment, he needed Rs.25,000/- to 30,000/- to get a job in the Police Department. The witness informed Ramesh that he would not be able to pay such an amount, as he was already indebted. The witness had purchased the land after obtaining loan. Therefore, he refused to pay the amount to the accused.
On 30th March, 2000, the witness was on duty in the school at Bankarwadi. On that day at about 12.30 noon, one Satav from Kalashi came to him, and told him that there was a telephonic message from Khanota. Something was wrong there. Then, he along with his mother and uncle, Bapu Lokhande, and Navnath Shinde came to Village Khanota by motor cycles. When they reached the house of Anita at Village Khanota, they noticed
8
that many people had collected there. He could not find Anita. Thereafter, he asked her brother-in-law, Suresh, as to where was Anita. At that time, Suresh told him that Anita was not alive. She died due to burns, and he could not show her the dead body. Then, without seeing Anita, he went to Bigwan Police Station. Police at Bhigwan Police Station asked him to approach Daund Police station. Then, he approached Daund Police station. His relatives also accompanied him. In Daund Police station, he came to know that police had already gone to Khanota. He came back to Khanota Village. He saw the dead body of Anita. Police prepared the panchnama of the dead body of Anita, and sent the dead body to Daund. He also went to Daund along with the dead body. The post-mortem was conducted at about 12.00 noon on the next day, i.e., 31st March, 2000. They received the dead body after post-mortem , and conducted the funeral at Daund, as the dead body was not in a condition to be shifted to Village Kalashi, because it was totally burnt and there was bad smell. The funeral was performed at about 4.00 p.m. After completion of the funeral, he approached Daund Police Station, and lodged the
9
complaint. Police recorded his statement. He accepted Exhibit 26 as his complaint. Police again recorded his statement on 5th April, 2000. On 1st April, 2000, he met Narayan Londhe. Narayan told him about the incident which occurred in his presence when he visited the house of the accused on 30th March in the morning.
improvements were pointed out, which may not be material.
was present near the house of Ramesh Landage on 31st March, 2000 at about 8.30 a.m. The spot of the offence consists of a two-room house facing towards the West. The North side room out of these two rooms was locked, and it was paper-sealed. They had unlocked the room by removing the paper-seal, and entered into the room. They found burnt pieces of cloths and near the Northside wall, they found the burnt floor. Bhimrao Sopan Pawar informed them that it was the spot where the dead body
was lying.
10
seen the accused burning the body of his wife. He stated that on a
Tuesday, he went to Limbodi for fair. He stayed in the house of his daughter-in-law. On Wednesday, he left Village Limbodi and reached Khanota. While he visited the house of a friend, Dattoba Deshmane, he halted in the house of Machindra Landage. On the
next morning, while he was proceeding to the house of Narayan
Deshmane, on the way, there is the house of Shankar Landage. When Shankar Landage saw him, he called and invited him for a cup of tea. He visited the house of Shankar, as he offered tea to him. He took tea in the courtyard of Shankar Landage. At that time, the younger son of Shankar Landage was beating his wife, i.e., the sister of the complainant. On hearing the noise, Shankar
Landage, his wife and his other son went towards the spot and asked accused No. 1 why he was beating his wife. He took breakfast given to him by the elder son of Shankar, and thereafter,
he proceeded to the house of Deshmane. He was in the house of Deshmane for about an hour. Then, there was commotion in front
11
of the house of the accused during that period of one hour. Therefore, he along with Narayan Deshmane and others came towards the house of Shankar. At that time, nobody from the family of Shankar was on the spot. In the house of Shankar, he noticed that some smoke was coming from the room. In the room, he found that one woman was in “burning position”, and she was not alive. Then the family members of the maternal home of that lady came to the spot. At that time, he was present there. Police came to the spot, prepared panchnama, and shifted the dead body for post-mortem . He went to his Village Khatgaon on Friday. The brother of that lady, who was burnt, came to his home at Khatgaon. He had narrated the incident to the complainant, i.e., the brother of the deceased, which occurred in his presence. It was 8.00 to 9.00 a.m. when he went to the house of Shankar Landage for tea. This witness was put to cross-examination, but nothing worthwhile could be elicited from him.
12
who conducted post mortem . He started post mortem on 31st March, 2000 at 10.10 a.m. and completed at 11.30 a.m. He found
the following injuries:-
“1) Over inner side of right thigh – starts from right inguinal canal muscle deep edges even 10 c.m. in length, 4 c.m. in width and 2 c.m. in depth.
Injury No.1 in column No. 17 is ante mortem and injury No.2 is post mortem. Injury No.3 in Col. 19 i.e. Pitechaial haemorrhage over brain matter means minute blood spots over external surface of the brain. In case of throttling, injury mentioned in Col. No. 19(3) is possible.”
In his opinion, the prima facie cause of death was shock due to asphyxia due to throttling. After getting reports, he gave the final death certificate, Exhibit 39, and according to him, the death was
caused by asphyxia due to throttling. The burn injuries on the body, according to the doctor, were post mortem . However, there
were certain injuries, which were ante mortem, but they were not responsible for death.
13
witness. He was called in the police station on 6th April, 2000. Accused No.1, according to him, was present in the police station, and accused No.1 showed his willingness to produce Thapi , which was used as a weapon to beat his wife. Police reduced the statement into writing. Then, by a private vehicle, he along with the other panchas, police and accused went to Village Khanota as per the directions of the accused. They parked the jeep near a big tree. They stepped down from the jeep. The accused pointed out the house where the offence took place. Then the accused entered into the house. Panchas followed him. In the house, the accused produced Thapi, which was kept beneath the handcart without wheels inside the house. He identified the Thapi , which was recovered after discovery by the accused.
14
15
there is no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that the accused
was involved in the case.
there was a long dispute going on between the husband and the wife, which is proved by the evidence. Thereafter, it is an admitted case that the body of the deceased was found in the room, which was occupied by the accused and the deceased, and they were husband and wife. He also submits that one of the witnesses, P.W.3, Narayan Mahadu Londhe, was present just before the occurrence in the house of the accused when he saw the accused beating his wife. This evidence becomes important, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, because the final opinion of the doctor was that the death had been caused due to asphyxia
and not due to burns. According to him, it is evident that the deceased was murdered first, and then tried to be burnt. He had also seen smoke coming out of the room. None of the accused
persons reported the matter to the police. Besides, he submits that
all these circumstances point to the fact that the murder was
16
committed by accused No.1, as the chain of circumstances is complete. He also submits that the prosecution conclusively proved that the deceased was murdered in the matrimonial house in the room which was occupied by the accused and the deceased.
Accused No.1 was present in the house, and he was last seen beating deceased, but accused No.1 did not offer any explanation even in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure
Code about the circumstances which were manifestly proved against him. He only stated that when the incident took place, he was not present in the house, and he had gone to another village where he was doing masonry work. Therefore, he tried to plead
alibi, and he produced two defence witnesses in this connection.
distance between the house of the accused and his house is about one mile. He did not know Narayan Mahadu Londhe. He had not seen that person. He stated that Narayan Mahadu Londhe had not come to his house on the day of the incident. It may be pointed
out herein that Narayan Mahadu Londhe is P.W.3, who had stated
17
that he visited the house of the accused and also one Narayan Baburao Dehsmane.
that he knew on 30th day that the deceased had died, but he did not inform the police.
He was Police Patil of Village Khanota. Rehabilitation Colony was situate towards the South side of Old Gavthan Khanota. He knew all the accused. The accused were staying in the New Gavthan, i.e., Rehabilitation Colony. On the day of the incident, he visited the house of the accused after the incident. He entered the room where there was a dead body, and noticed some persons in that room, who were coming and going into the room. He did not remember whether the police had recorded his statement. None of the accused was present in their home on the day of the incident as they had gone out of the village to attend the marriage
of their relative. This witness also does not come to the rescue of
18
the accused himself because he reached the house after the incident and it will be dangerous to believe him when he says that
all the inmates of the house had gone to attend a marriage. There is no mention of marriage by any of the witnesses. Besides, accused No.1 himself stated that he had gone to another village for masonry work. In our view, plea of alibi taken but not proved can be itself a circumstance against the accused.
BILAL NAZKI, J.
A.R. JOSHI, J.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the conviction under Section 498-A IPC was sustainable given the evidence on record.
Whether the appellant had a complete chain of evidence for conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the conviction for Kaffayeer (murder) should be quashed.
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Ramesh Shankar Landage
State of Maharashtra
Bilal Nazki
A.R. Joshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
