The High Court refused leave to the State to file an appeal against the acquittal of respondents accused of instigating a murder/suicide under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. The court held the acquittal by the Sessions Judge was reasonable and not perverse.
Leave to file appeal refused; criminal application dismissed.
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.
criapln3604-2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3604 OF 2014
The State of Maharashtra
through P.I.,
Supa Police Station, Supa,
Tq. Parner, Dist. Ahmednagar
APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Santosh Ramdas Wabale
2. Ramdas Baburao Wabale
3. Malan w/o Ramdas Wabale
All r/o Rui-Chhatrapati,
Tq. Parner, Dist. AhmednagarRESPONDENTS
Mr. N.T. Bhagat, Advocate for the applicant/State
Smt. M.D. Thube-Mhase, Advocate for the respondents
CORAM: M.T. JOSHI, J.
DATE : 06/01/2016
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondents
from the offences punishable under section 306 and 498-A
read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, by the
learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar vide
judgement and order dated 28th February, 2014 passed in
Sessions Case No. 21/2013, the State wants to prefer an
criapln3604-2014
2
appeal and therefore, the present application for leave
to file appeal is filed.
3.The record would show that deceased Anita had
married to the present respondent No. 1 – Santosh about
twelve years preceding her death. The respondents No. 2
and 3 are his parents. The evidence would show that
since the deceased and respondent No. 1 were having job
at Pune, they used to reside with the mother of the
deceased i.e. complainant PW1 Babai Diwate. She (the
deceased) died due to burn injuries on 14th June, 2012.
.When the deceased was admitted to the hospital,
her dying declaration was recorded at Exhibit-27. In
the said dying declaration, she appears to have stated
that her mother-in-law and father-in-law i.e. present
respondents No. 2 and 3 used to quarrel with her on the
ground that she should stay at their village Rui-
Chhatrapati and not at Pune. She, therefore, felt bad
and had set herself on fire. Upon her death, her mother
has filed F.I.R., complaining that besides these
instances, there was demand of money of Rs. 25,000/- for
purchase of cows, digging of bore-well, etc. and
therefore, on this count, there was illtreatment and
3 criapln3604-2014
that was the reason for commission of suicide.
4.The learned trial court took into consideration
the fact that the F.I.R. was filed by the mother of the
deceased after two days of the incident and the
prosecution case itself would reveal that the deceased
and respondent No. 1 were residing away from the
respondents No. 2 and 3 at Pune with the complainant
herself. Further, the dying declaration of the deceased,
as detailed supra, was taken into consideration and the
respondents were acquitted.
5.Upon hearing both sides, in my view, the
learned Sessions Judge has taken into consideration all
the material on record and forwarded the view. The same
cannot be called as unreasonable or improbable. The
reasoning forwarded by the learned Sessions Judge is not
perverse. In the circumstances, to grant leave to file
an appeal would be an exercise in futility. Leave to
file appeal is, therefore, refused. The present
application stands dismissed.
npj/criapln3604-2014
3 issues framed by the court
Whether leave to file an appeal against the acquittal of respondents in a suicide case should be granted.
Whether the learnined Sessions Judge's view on reasonable doubt was perverse.
If grant of leave to appeal in such a factual matrix would be an exercise in futility.
The State of Maharashtra
Santosh Ramdas Wabale
Ramdas Baburao Wabale
Malan w/o Ramdas Wabale
M.T. JOSHI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court