Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra Throughsow Padmin Arun Pisal v. Venkat Tatyaram More and Ors.

Bombay HC6 Sept 2010APPLN/509/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On an application for leave to appeal against an acquittal under sections 498-A and 306 IPC, the High Court held that the impugned judgment could not be regarded as prima facie assailable given deficiencies in prosecution evidence, thus dismissing the application.

What did the court decide?

The application seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the leave to appeal in Sessions Case no. 46 of 2008 was also dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra Throughsow Padmin Arun Pisal… — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2010)

¶1

(1) CRI.APP. 509.2010

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.509 OF 2010

¶4

The State of Maharashtra,
Through Sow. Padmin Arun Pisal,
Age : 45 years, Occu.: Agri.,
R/o Weeda, Tq. Kaij,
District Beed .. Applicant

¶5

 VERSUS

¶6

1. Venkat Tatyaram More

¶7

2. Ashruba Venkat More

¶8

3. Pandit @ Dadasaheb Venkat More

¶9

4. Kaushalyabai Venkat More .. Respondents

¶10

Mr. B.J. Sonawane, APP for the applicant-State
Mr. B.A. Dhengle, Advocate for the respondents

¶11

...

¶12

CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010

¶13

ORAL ORDER:-

¶14

1.This is an Application seeking leave to
Appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal
rendered by the Sessions Court in Sessions Case no.

¶15

46 of 2008, whereby the respondents have been
acquitted for offence punishable under section 498-A
and 306 r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶16

2.Report was filed by mother of deceased
Archana. The marriage between deceased Archana and

¶17

(2) CRI.APP. 509.2010

¶18

respondent no.2 was performed before about three
years of her death. She was residing with the
respondents in the common house situated at village
Sarola (M). It was alleged that the respondents were
demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchasing a tractor
vehicle. On her failure to fetch such amount she was

¶19

being harassed and ill treated and subjected to
matrimonial cruelty at their hands. She had
disclosed about the matrimonial cruelty at hands of
the respondents and the unlawful demand made by them
to her paternal uncle who had visited her house at
the time of Nagpanchami festival. When her brother
had gone to the house of the respondents to fetch

¶20

her, they refused to send her. On 7.6.2007, her
father-in-law informed the parents of Archana that

¶21

they shall visit his village because Archana was
unwell. After they visited the village, they noticed

¶22

dead body of Archana which was floating in a well

¶23

situated in agricultural land of the respondent no.1
(husband). They attended the enquiry during the

¶24

course of A.D. registered on the report of the
respondent no.1. Subsequently report was lodged by

¶25

(3) CRI.APP. 509.2010

¶26

the mother i.e. PW Padmin. Upon investigation into
the report, the respondents were charge-sheeted for

¶27

the offences as stated before.

¶28

3.Having heard learned APP and learned

¶29

Advocate for the respondents, it appears that the
prosecution examined only the closely related
witnesses. The incident referred by the witness, who

¶30

is maternal uncle of deceased Archana is said to have
occurred prior to about one year of the alleged
incident of her death. The Sessions Court noticed
certain material discrepancies in the statement of

¶31

said witness i.e. PW2 Dadarao. It was found that his

¶32

version is not credit-worthy in view of
embellishments and subsequent variations made by him.
So also, the trial Court noticed that PW 3 Sakharam
(maternal uncle of deceased Archana) vaguely stated
about the demand and the ill treatment. What appears

¶33

from the record is that the well in question is
situated in the agricultural land and there was a
basket loaded with clothes which were purported to be

¶34

washed. The circumstances found at the spot

¶35

(4) CRI.APP. 509.2010

¶36

indicated, prima facie, that deceased Archana might

¶37

have gone to the well for washing of the clothes.

¶38

4.It is submitted by learned APP that there
were steps inside the well and, therefore, ordinarily
accidental death could not have occurred. One cannot
be oblivious of the fact that the incident occurred
in the month of June, 2007 during rainy season and,
therefore, probability of the steps being slippery
due to rainfall or growing of the small plants around
it cannot be ruled out. No prior complaint was lodged
by deceased Archana or the parents of Archana.

¶39

5.Under these circumstances, the impugned
judgment of acquittal cannot be regarded as prima
facie assailable. Application is therefore dismissed

¶40

and the leave to Appeal too is dismissed.

¶41

 [V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.]

¶42

arp

The State of Maharashtra Throughsow Padmin Arun Pisal v. Venkat Tatyaram More and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra Throughsow Padmin Arun Pisal v. Venkat Tatyaram More and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sudam Sambhaji Dhavale Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Dnyanoba Kisanrao Shingire

The State of Mah Vs Arun Narayan Shimpi

Sarjerao Uttam Gonde Vs State of Mah and Ors.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Hiralal Bhagwan Baviskar

Narayan Pandharinath Choudhary Vs Shilabai Narayan Choudhary and Ors.