Jagannath Trimbak Labade Vs State of Maharashtra

¶1

1 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 270 of 1998

¶4

Date of decision:13/1/2011

¶5

For approval and signature

¶6

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.U.CHANDIWAL

¶7

1. Whether the Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?	Yes/
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ?	No
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment ?	No.
4. Whether this case involves a substantial? question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950, or any order made thereunder ?	No.
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judges ?	No.
6. Whether the case involves an important question of law and whether a copy of the Order should be sent to Bombay, Goa and Nagpur Office ?	No

¶8

Private Secretary AGP/office/270-98cr.a

¶9

2 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶11

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶12

Shri Jagannath Trimbak Labade,
Age 40 years, r/o Ghari,
Tal.Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar.

¶13

...APPELLANT

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

The State of Maharashtra,
Through P.S.I., G.S.Patil,
Kopargaon, Police Thane,
At & P.O. Tal.Kopargaon,
District Ahmednagar.

¶16

...RESPONDENT

¶17

...

¶18

Mr.Pradip N.Sonpethkar, Adv., for the
appellant.
Mr.N.B.Patil, APP for respondent State.

¶19

...

¶20

CORAM: K.U.CHANDIWAL, J.
 DATE : 13/1/2011
***

¶21

ORAL JUDGMENT:

¶22

1.Heard learned Counsel and learned A.P.P.
The appeal is is admitted on 14.9.1998. The
appellant questions conviction recorded for an
offense under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC in
Sessions Case No.297/1996, dt.31.8.1998, by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kopargaon.

¶23

3 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶24

2.The matrimonial relations of the accused
applicant with deceased Mankarna getting married
on 13.2.1996, six months prior to the incident
dt.8.7.1996 are not in controversy. Learned
Counsel for the appellant submits that in the
dying declarations of the victim Mankarna ( Exhs.
22 and 27) in unmistakable terms, she has
informed the events as an accidental burns that
she has suffered, it should have been believed.
The learned Judge erred in holding that death of
Mankarna is a case of suicide and then holding
appellant/accused abated commission of suicide.
Learned Judge erred in not believing evidence of
Kakasaheb Ahilaji Pawar, PW No.1, a neighbour who
did not support the prosecution. The story and
the evidence of the close relatives of Mankarna
is afterthought and should not have been
believed. No presumption could have been raised
in terms of Section 113 of Indian Evidence Act.

¶25

3.With the assistance of learned Counsel
and learned A.P.P., evidence of each of the
witness is read. Kakasaheb Ahilaji Pawar (PW
No.1), as stated earlier, is neighbour, submits
that the incident has taken place in Gaikwad
Vasti. While Mankarna had come to him in a burnt
condition, her apparels were burnt, she informed
him of having received burns due to flaring up of
stove. She desired medical assistance. He
disputed prosecution case. From his Police

¶26

4 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶27

statement marked portion "A" was pointed to him
wherein he had implicated the accused. He
disputed it. Said portion "A" has not been
established/proved through the evidence of
investigating officer.

¶28

4.PW No.3 Machindra is elder brother, PW
No.4 Thakubai is the mother, PW No.6 Rambhau is
maternal uncle while PW No.7 Tukaram is elder
brother of the deceased Mankarna. PW No.2 Sachin
proved the panchnama of the hut in question on
9.7.1996. PW No.5 Rajendra Ajmera is money
lender with whom ornaments belonging to Thakubai
(PW 4) were pawned, by the accused. The post
mortem notes are at Exh.10, not disputed by the
defense. Thus, the theory projected by the
defense is, death of Mankarna is accidental, due
to flaring up of stove and no colour of suicidal
death can be branded.

¶29

5.EvidenceofThakubai,Rambhau,

¶30

Machindra, the brother, if read together,
illustrated that accused was engaged in vending
milk, he was already married, however, lost his
first wife from whom he had a daughter. The
accused, after marriage with Mankarna, had
demanded money through Mankarna, for carrying
business in milk. Consequent thereupon, the
maternal uncle Rambhau donated a cow worth Rs.
10,000/- to the accused, however, the accused was

¶31

5 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶32

not satisfied. These details are proved by two
witnesses. Cow was carried by Tukaram and
Rambhau. He sent back Mankarna with the step
daughter.

¶33

6.LearnedCounselforthe

¶34

accused/applicant reiterate that immediately
before the death of Mankarna, there was no demand
or cruelty or instigation from the accused,
making the life of Mankarna miserable, to commit
suicide.

¶35

7.The evidence of Thakubai and Tukaram
consistently point that Mankarna was sent by the
accused for compliance of demand. Accused had
taken to drinks and was torturing and
pressurizing Mankarna. On second occasion, since
demand of second cow was not complied with, the
trouble was aggravated. Thakubai, since could
not comply demand of the accused through
Mankarna, for Rs.5,000/-, to console her daughter
Mankarna, who was weeping, gave her ornaments,
advised Mankarna to satisfy her requirement with
the ornaments. The set of ornaments belonging
to Thakubai was pawned by the accused with
Rajendra Ajmera as he identifies two Dorlasand
Top pledged by the accused for the amount of Rs.
2,500/-. The accused has candidly accepted such
monetary transaction with witness Rajendra,
having pledged the gold ornaments, however, the

¶36

6 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶37

accused canvassed, these ornaments belonged to
him. There was no reason for Thakubai to detail
in advance about her gold ornaments handed over
to Mankarna to satisfy demand of the accused and
her identifying the same. The ornaments, in the
backdrop of above events, were belonging to
Thakubai.

¶38

8.Another circumstance against the accused
is, his visit to the village three days prior to
the incident of burning of Mankarna. This has
been so indicated by all the witnesses, the
accused forcefully brought back Mankarna to
matrimonial home, inspite of such insistence by
the witnesses and Mankarna to remain at parental
home. The evidence of the witnesses attracts
provisions of Section 498-A, clause (b) of IPC
which reads as under:

¶39

"498A. Husband or relative of husband of
a woman subjecting her to cruelty:-
Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and
shall also be liable to fine.

¶40

 Explanation-For the purpose of this
section, "cruelty" means-

¶41

(a)......

¶42

(b) Harassment of the woman where
such harassment is with a view to

¶43

7 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶44

coercing her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure
by her or any person related to her
meet such demand."

¶45

9.The mental torture to Mankarna was, in
the given situation, amounting to cruelty. She
had already suffered a brunt from her earlier
marriage, barely six months thereafter she was to
face turmoil and embarrassment in her matrimonial
life. She was disgusted and mentally upset by
the circumstances and situation created by the
accused/appellant. The mindset of the victim
also needs to be evaluated. In the dying
declarations (Exh.22 and 27), she desired a clean
chit to be given to the accused. It was,
probably, with a hope to survive, however, she
succumbed. Different persons react to situations
as per their own understanding and state of
environment. The deceased was already a
harassed woman, consequently, could not imagine
to part company of the accused and hence, the two
dying declarations. The learned District Judge
rightly did not believe the dying declaration to
infer that it was an accidental death.

¶46

10. The theory of bursting of stove, as
projected by the accused and reflected in the
dying declaration also rebels the spot panchnama.
Presence or existence of any stove or its

¶47

8 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶48

bursting or sprinkling of kerosene or flames
having its impact on the roof or sheets of the
wall is not there. Nothing was found on the
flooring. On the other hand, the room had a very
devastating situation, showing a bottle of 250 ml
with kerosene, matchsticks and scattered
household articles. The articles were
witnessing the situation under which the victim
committed suicide. Had it been a case of
accidental burn, the victim could have raised hue
and cry for assistance. Evidence of PW No.1
Kakasaheb cannot be accelerated and coined in
favour of the accused as he betrayed the
evidence, rebelling the Police statement.

¶49

11. The abetement of a thing as illustrated in
Section 107 of IPC, relates to instigation by any
person to do a thing and, secondly, engages with
one or more other persons in a conspiracy for
doing that thing. Explanation to Section 107 of
PenalCodestatesthatanywilful
misrepresentation or wilful concealment of a
material fact which the person is bound to
disclose may also come within the sweep of
"abetment". Clause firstly has to be taken into
consideration restricting to instigation.

¶50

12.The Hon'ble Lordships of the Supreme
Court, in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of
Chattisgarh ( (2001) 9 SCC 618), in three Judge

¶51

9 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶52

judgment have observed that instigation is to
goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
instigation, though it is not necessary that the
actual words must be used to that effect or what
constitute instigation must necessarily and
specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or
by a continued course of conduct created such
circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide in which
case an instigation may have been inferred. The
Apex Court also cautioned, "A word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending the
consequences to actually follow cannot be said to
be instigation."

¶53

13.Learned Counsel submits, there is no
evidence to show as to what happened soon before
the death. Fourteen years have elapsed, and
therefore, concession be given to the accused,
he has undergone sentence of 105 days, he is
coming from poor strata of the society and there
is no past criminal record.

¶54

Though the accused is coming from poor
strata of the society, however, the manner in
which precious life of his wife has been taken
away, to meet his demands, to accommodate his
waywardness in the life to the habit of drinks,
does not call for any sympathetic approach. This

¶55

10 CRI.APPEAL NO.270 OF 1998

¶56

cannot be said to be a contrition or an act of
remorse.

¶57

14.Theaccused/appellantdesiredto
satisfy his greed of getting persistent flow of
money from the poor parental family of Mankarna.
In order to achieve his goal he had sent his
daughter with Mankarna to demand. Earlier cow
was given, thereafter gold ornaments were given.
The greed did not stop and, resultantly, the
three days prior to the event, the victim was
facing cruelty at the behest and hands of the
accused. The harassment caused to the deceased,
beating caused to her was for the purpose of
coercing her parental family to meet the demands
which certainly would be a cruelty, punishable
under Section 498-A of IPC. The observation of
the learned District Judge, on this count, is
taking care of the evidence in its entirety.

¶58

The conviction of the accused/appellant, in the set of above facts, cannot be said to be erroneous or contrary to the legal position.

¶59

Appeal dismissed. The accused to surrender upto 27th Jan.,2011. Failure to do so, to face consequences.

¶60

(K.U.CHANDIWAL)

¶61

JUDGE

¶62

...

¶63

AGP/270-98cr.a

Jagannath Trimbak Labade v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Trimbak Labade v. State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Walmik Kshridhar Jadhav Vs the State Ofl Maharashtra

Sunil Namdeo More Vs Bhikchand Dhondiram Ranka

Azija Begum Anwar Khan Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Vijay Balbhim Garje and Ors. Vs the State of Mah

The State of Maharashtra and Anr. Vs Jawahar Shantilal Shah

Rajendra Sukhdeo Thorat and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.