Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra through Pso Chandur Railway v. Prashant Babarao Mankar and Others

Bombay HC25 Jul 2012APPA/392/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of a husband and others in a dowry death case. The trial court held evidence of causing death by strangulation was unsupported by medical evidence of hanging and found proof of cruelty too short amidst hearsay.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal against acquittal refused; Criminal Application dismissed.

The State of Maharashtra through Pso Chandur Railway Vs… — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶3

CRIMINAL APPLN. (APPA) NO.392 OF 2012 IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2012.

¶4

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THR. PSO CHANDUR RAILWAY

¶5

..VS..

¶6

PRASHANT BABARAO MANKAR & OTH.

¶7

- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶8

- - - - Mr. T.A. Mirza, A.P.P. for Applicant.

¶9

CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & M.L.TAHALIYANI, JJ. DATED : JULY 25, 2012.

¶10

Applicant-State feels aggrieved by judgment and order dated 24^th February, 2012 passed by Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No. 9 of 2011. Respondents No.1 to 6 were accused in the said case and were tried for the offences punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in alternate Section 302 read with Section 34, in alternate Section 304-B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It may be noted that the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 304-B and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were added later on by amendment of the charge.

¶11

The respondents, after trial, have been acquitted of all the charges. The prosecution case before the trial Court was that respondent No.1 Prashant Mankar was married to

¶12

¶13

deceased Yogita on 6^th June, 2009. Respondent No.1 was working as a clerk in a college at Chandur Railway. He was staying with his parents respondents No.2 and 3 and his brother respondent No.4 at Arvi. He was attending his duties from Arvi by undertaking daily to and fro journey between two stations. The deceased was staying with respondents No. 1 to 4 in the joint family. Respondent No.5 is sister of respondent No.1 and respondent No.6 is husband of respondent No.5. Respondents No.5 and 6 were staying at Wardha. However, they had been allegedly visiting Arvi frequently.

¶14

It is alleged that the respondents were not happy with the gift articles received in the marriage of respondent No.1 and deceased Yogita, they were demanding Rs.four lacs from the parents of deceased to purchase a plot. The parents could not fulfill the demand and therefore, the deceased was ill-treated by all the respondents. The respondent No. 5 and 6 were particularly charged for mental cruelty as they were allegedly hurting the deceased by unwarranted comments. It is also alleged that Yogita was once sent back to her parental house. However, she was again came back to her matrimonial house. The ill-treatment allegedly continued.

¶15

It is the case of prosecution and not disputed by the defence that the respondent No.1 and the deceased had later on shifted to Chandur Railway and they had been staying in a rented room at Chandur Railway w.e.f. 6^th June, 2010. It is alleged that there was harassment on the part of respondent No.1. It was alleged that when father of the deceased had gone to Chandur Railway to extend invitation to respondent No.1 to attend marriage of his son (brother of

¶16

¶17

deceased Yogita), he was insulted by respondent No.1 and was told that neither respondent No.1 nor Yogita would attend the marriage. Respondent No.1 had allegedly not bother to visit his father in law when he was not well.

¶18

It is on 4^th July, 2010 that the brother of the deceased received a telephone call that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself. He, therefore, immediately visited Chandur Railway and found dead body of his sister in the room where the deceased and respondent No.1 were staying. There was a rope around her neck. It appears that the brother of the deceased had reached after the dead body was removed from the place where it was found hanged.

¶19

The brother of the deceased lodged report against the respondents. The police had registered offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation chargesheet was filed. As already stated, other sections were added later on.

¶20

Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Mirza.

¶21

It was pointed out that there is evidence of relatives of the deceased which has not been properly appreciated by the learned trial Court. We have gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court. The learned trial Court has come to a conclusion that the case of the prosecution that Yogita was strangulated could not be accepted in view of the clear evidence of the Medical Officer that the deceased had died due to hanging. The Medical

¶22

¶23

Officer during the course of examination of the dead body had found that there was fracture of thyroid cartilage and cervical vertebra. In her cross-examination this witness has stated that the ligature marks clearly indicated that it was a case of hanging and not strangulation. She has also stated in the cross-examination that fracture of thyroid cartilage and cervical vertebra is also indicative of hanging and not strangulation. As far as the evidence of witnesses to prove cruelty and abetment is concerned, the learned trial Court has found the evidence too short to convict the respondents even for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Most of the evidence is found to be hearsay. The only independent witness viz. Rupesh Suryawanshi has not supported the prosecution case. It is stated by him in his examination-in-chief that the main entrance door of the room where the deceased and the appellant were staying was bolted from inside. The deceased was not responding when the appellant called her from outside. P.W. 2 Rupesh Suryawanshi has stated that he was called by the appellant. He reached the spot with his brother and one Abhay. They called the deceased to open the door but there was no response. Therefore, the door was required to be broken. Said Abhay and brother of P.W. 2 has not been examined.

¶24

After having gone through the judgment of the learned trial Court and copies of evidence of the prosecution witnesses produced before us by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we are of the opinion that the view expressed by the learned trial Court appears to be most probable view. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Mirza has not been able to point out any perversity in the judgment.

¶25

¶26

In the circumstances, it is not possible to grant leave to appeal against the order of acquittal. Consequently this application fails and is dismissed .

¶27

Leave refused.

¶28

JUDGE JUDGE

¶29

RRaut.

The State of Maharashtra through Pso Chandur Railway v. Prashant Babarao Mankar and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra through Pso Chandur Railway v. Prashant Babarao Mankar and Others

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

Baba Bapuraoji Mungley , C/8347 Vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secy Home Deptt Mantralaya, Mumbai and Another

Smt Maya W/O Kaka Dupare Vs State of Maharashtra through SP Chandrapur and Another

State of Maharashtra through Pso Ps Bhamragad, Distt Gadchiroli Vs Deepak Krushnaji Dekate and Another

Leela W/O Jagatrao Tayade Vs State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary, Home Ministry Deptt, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Others

Dr. Sapna Anurag Jain Vs State of Mah. Thru. Secty. and 2 Ors.

Shri Santosh S/O Murlidharrao Mahatme Vs Zilla Parishad, through Its Chief Executive Officer, Amravati and 2 Others