Criminal Application filed by the State against an acquittal in a case alleging cruelty and causing death. High Court rejected the application holding the lower court's findings of accidental death were sound and justifiable based on evidence.
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.
APPLN92.2014
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 92 OF 2014
The State of Maharashtra (Through Kadegaon Police Station, Tal. Kadegaon, District Sangli C.R. No. 29/2012)
... Applicant
Versus
All residents of Raygaon, Taluka Kadegaon, Dist. Sangli. ... Respondents
Shri. S. S. Pednekar, APP for the applicant/State
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. DATED : 11th November, 2014.
ORAL JUDGMENT: -
. This is an application seeking leave to appeal challenging thereby the judgment and order dated 27th December, 2013 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangli in Sessions Case No. 142 of 2012, thereby acquitting the accused i.e.present respondents of the offences punishable under
APPLN92.2014
-2-
Sections 498-A, 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Rohini i.e. sister of the complainant – Vijay Pawar was married to Mahadev Govind Jadhav i.e. respondent No. 1 herein on 22nd July, 2007. The couple is blessed with two daughters namely; Vaishnavi and Janhavi. It is alleged that, respondent No. 1 was insisting upon his wife to fetch Rs. 1.00 Lakh from her father. Rohini had informed about the said demand to her father telephonically. Due to financial constraints, the father of the complainant could not fulfill the said demand. He had paid Rs. 10,000/- initially, however, the illtreatment on account of non-fulfillment of the demand continued. That, on 9th June, 2012 Rohini was admitted in the Krishna Hospital at Karad. The complainant, his parents and his relatives had been to Hospital to meet Rohini. Upon enquiry, Rohini had allegedly informed the complainant and others that she could not bear the ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the present respondents and, therefore, she has set herself at ablaze. On 9th June, 2012 itself at about 7.00 p.m., Rohini had succumbed to the burn injuries. On 10th June, 2012, the complainant lodged a report at the police station. On the
APPLN92.2014 -3-
basis of his report, Crime No. 29 of 2012 was registered against the present respondents for offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 366 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 142 of 2012. The prosecution examined as many as five witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused and the defence had examined Tanaji Shankar Narwadkar, Police Constable as defence witness to prove the Dyingdeclaration at Exh. 35.
APPLN92.2014 -4-
Exh. 23, lodged by Rohini. It is a matter of record that, in the said complaint, Rohini had not stated that she was being harassed on account of demand of money. The said complaint was in the handwriting of Rohini. PW-4 – Adhikrao Wanave Head Constable, has proved Exh. 27. According to him, the said application filed by Rohini disclosed that she was being harassed on account of domestic chores. He had registered the said complaint as Station Diary No. 29 of 2012. He had summoned the accused and were warned to behave properly with Rohini. The accused had filed a written statement at Exh. 2 and all that was apparent is that, the disputes were on account of domestic chores. PW-2 – Shankar Dadu Patil has also reiterated that the accused were harassing Rohini on account of demand of money. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge has arrived at a conclusion that there were domestic quarrels between the womenfolk in the house.
APPLN92.2014 -5-
Exh. 35. The recitals of the statement would show that Rohini had disclosed to the Head Constable that on 8th June, 2012 at about 10.00 p.m., she was sleeping with her husband and daughters. At about 11.00 p.m., her daughter Janhavi was weeping. She woke up for boiling milk. She was trying to ignite the stove and due to sudden flaring up of the stove, her saree caught fire. Thereafter, her husband woke up, extinguished the flames by covering her with a blanket. He called upon the landlord and other relatives and she was taken to Krishna Hospital. The palms of both the hands of her husband were burnt in the course of extinguishing the flames. The said statement was recorded at 9.00 a.m., and Rohini succumbed to the injuries on 7.50 p.m. on the same day. According to the complainant and other witnesses, at about 6.00 p.m., Rohini made a statement that she attempted suicidal death due to the ill-treatment meted out to her at the hands of the husband and other relatives. However, the relatives had not taken any steps to inform about the disclosure made by Rohini to the police or to anybody else. In view of the statement at Exh. 35, it is clear that the death of Rohini is not suicidal but accidental. There is documentary evidence to that effect. Hence, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge had rightly acquitted accused of all the charges levelled against them.
APPLN92.2014
-6-
( SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J. )
sgp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Sessions Judge rightly acquitted the accused given the dying statement indicating an accidental fire.
Whether there is sufficient merit to allow a criminal application against the acquittal order on reasonable doubt grounds.
Whether interfering with the acquittal is necessary where the Supreme Court of the hospital recording the dying statement found no suicidal intent evidenced by presence burns. case caused.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
State of Maharashtra
Mahadeo Govind Jadhav
Sou. Shantabai Govind Jadhav
Sou. Laxmi Vijay Jadhav
Sadhana S. Jadhav
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
