Cruelty, murder and disappearance of evidence charges arose from a married woman's death in a well. The Court held that the offences were not proved beyond reasonable doubt and dismissed the State's appeal against acquittal.
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.
( 1 )
criapl185.02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.185 OF 2002
The State of Maharashtra..Appellant
Through the Police Station Officer (Ori.Complainant)
Police Station Chaklamba,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed
Versus
1. |
Arun Appasaheb Narute,.Age-25 years, Occu-Agriculture,R/o.Khalegaon, Tq. Georai,Dist. Beed |
.Respondents |
|---|---|---|
2. |
Appasaheb S/o. Dhulaji Nartute,Age-52 years, Occu. & R/o as above |
|
3. |
Sau. Vithabai W/o. Appasaheb Narute,Age-45 years, Occu-House Hold,R/o. As above |
|
4. |
Sau. Sangeeta W/o. Raosaheb Chormale,Age-27 years, Occu-Household,R/o.Revki, Tq.Georai,Dist. Beed |
|
5. |
Sau. Gangabai Ganesh Takle,Age-23 years, Occu-House hold,R/o. Bangali, Pimpla,Tq.Georai, Dist. Beed |
|
Mr.Mr.Adv |
S.D.Ghayal, APP for the appellantShakil U. Shaikh, Advocate h/focate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 |
Mr.R.D.Biradar, |
( 2 ) criapl185.02
CORAM :T.V.NALAWADE & S.M. GAVHANE, JJ. DATED :07.09.2017
J U D G M E N T [PER: S.M. GAVHANE, J] :-
.The appellant/State has filed this appeal
against the judgment and order dated 25.10.2001 passed by
the Additional Sessions Judge, Beed in Sessions Case No.
82/2000 thereby acquitting the respondents (original
accused Nos. 1 to 5) of the offences punishable under
Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 r/w Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code (for short the IPC).
2.The prosecution case, in short, is as under:-
A]The informant Pramod PW-2 is the brother of the
deceased Sandhya, who is resident of Dist. Beed. She was
married to accused No.1 Arun on 04.05.1998. Accused Nos.
2 to 5 are respectively father, mother and married
sisters of the accused No.1. The deceased was treated
properly at the house of the accused for about 3-4 months
after her marriage. It is alleged that after 3-4 months
of her marriage whenever the deceased came to her
parental house she disclosed that accused were ill-
treating her saying that she could not do household work
( 3 ) criapl185.02
and could not cook properly. Accused Nos. 4 and 5 were
also harassing the deceased whenever they used to come to
their matrimonial home i.e. house of accused Nos. 1 to 3.
However, the deceased was convinced and sent to the house
of the accused. She was brought for Diwali festival of
the year 1999 at the house of PW-2 her brother. After one
month of Diwali festival PW-2 reached the deceased to the
house of accused. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 refused to accept
her and asked for divorce. However, they were convinced
and she was left at their house.
B]Further it is alleged that, on 10.04.2002 PW-2
had gone to the house of accused to bring the deceased
Sandhya for the marriage of his cousin. At that time she
told that accused asked her to bring Rs.50,000/- from her
parental house for purchasing agricultural land and on
that count they were harassing and ill-treating her. At
that time she was pregnant of four months. So also, she
disclosed that she was frustrated due to ill-treatment
and harassment at the hands of accused. She was not sent
with PW-2 at that time.
C]On 01.05.2000 PW-2 received message that
deceased fell in the well and died. PW-2 lodged the
complaint in Police Station Chaklamba alleging that
deceased committed suicide due to frustration due to ill-
( 4 ) criapl185.02
treatment and harassment to her at the hands of the
accused for fulfilling their unlawful demand of Rs.
50,000/-. After receiving the said complaint, treating
the same as FIR Police registered Crime No.15/2000 under
Section 498-A and 306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC against
the accused.
D]Prior to registering the crime as above Police
Patil of village Khalegaon registered death of Sandhya
(deceased) to Police Station Chaklamaba on 01.05.2000
vide his report (Exh.55), on the basis of which AD No.
8/2000 was registered. During enquiry of said AD case
Police prepared inquest panchanama (Exh.41) and spot of
panchanama (Exh.42). Dead body was referred for
postmortem examination to the Primary Health Centre,
Umapur. The Medical Officer Mr. Rajeshkumar Shinde (PW-3)
conducted the postmortem examination and opined that
death was caused due to cardio, respiratory arrest due to
asphyxia due to throttling. After knowing said cause of
death PW-2 Pramod gave his supplementary statement and on
the basis of the same offence already registered under
Section 306 of the IPC was converted to that under
Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. The statements of other
relatives of the deceased were also recorded by the
Investigating Officer PSI-Ramesh Waghmare (PW-10).
( 5 ) criapl185.02
E]After completion of the investigation police
submitted charge-sheet against the accused in the Court
of JMFC, Georai for the offence under Section 302, 498-A
and 201 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. As the offence under
Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the
Court of Sessions, learned Magistrate committed the case
to the Sessions Court, Beed.
F]The charge for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 r/w 34 of the IPC was framed
against the accused to which they pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Their defence is total denial.
According to them deceased was married to accused No.1.
They have not disputed relationship of accused Nos.2 to 5
with accused No.1. According to them death of the
deceased was accidental as she fell in the well while
fetching the water and that the brother and mother of the
deceased demanded marriage expenses from them, after the
death of the deceased and as they (accused) refused for
the same, brother and mother of the deceased have falsely
involved them in the case. They have not examined witness
in defence.
G]The prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses
to bring home the guilt of the accused. Considering the
said evidence, evidence in the form of Panchanama and
( 6 ) criapl185.02
postmortem report (Exh.46) the trial Court held that
prosecution has failed to prove the offences against
accused with which they were charged and acquitted all
the accused of the said offences by the impugned judgment
and order, which is challenged by the appellant/State in
this appeal.
3.We have heard learned APP appearing for the
appellant/State and the learned Advocate appearing for
the respondents/accused and with their able assistance we
have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution. So
also, we have gone through the impugned judgment and
order.
4.Since this is an appeal against the acquittal,
before considering the evidence adduced by the
prosecution, it is necessary to refer the guide lines
given by the Apex Court in the case of Murlidhar alias
Gidda and another Vs State of Karnataka, 2014(4)Mh.L.J.
(Cri)353regarding appreciation of evidence in case of
appeal against acquittal and in the para-12 the Apex
Court has held as under:-
"12.The approach of the appellate Court in
the appeal against acquittal has been dealt with
by this Court in Tulshiram Kanu Vs State, AIR
1954 SC 1, Madan Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P.,
AIR 1954 SC 637, Atley Vs State of U.P., AIR
( 7 ) criapl185.02
1955 SC 807, Aher Raja Khima Vs State of
Saurashtra, AIR 1956 SC 217, Balbir Singh Vs
State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216, M.G. Agrawal
Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 200, Noor
Khan Vs State of Rajasthan, AIR 1964 SC 286,
Khedu Mohton Vs State of Bihar, (1970) 2 SCC
450, Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade Vs State of
Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793, Lekha Yadav Vs
State of Bihar, (1973) 2 SCC 424, Khem Karan Vs
State of U.P., (1974) 4 SCC 603, Bisan Singh Vs
State of Punjab, (1974) 3 SCC 288, Umedbhai
Jadavbhai Vs State of Gujrat, (1978) 1 SCC 228,
K. Gopal Reddy Vs. State of A.P., (1979) 1 SCC
355, Tota Singh Vs State of Punjab, (1987) 2 SCC
529, Ram Kumar Vs State of Haryana, 1995 Supp
(1) SCC 248, Madan Lal Vs. State of J & K,
(1997) 7 SCC 677, Sambasivan Vs State of Kerala,
(1998) 5 SCC 412, Bhagwan Singh Vs State of
M.P., (2002) 4 SCC 85, Harijana Thirupala Vs
Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., (2002) 6
SCC 470, C. Antony Vs K.G. Raghavan Nair, (2003)
1 SCC 1, State of Karnataka Vs K. Gopalkrishna,
(2005) 9 SCC 291, State of Goa Vs Sanjay
Thakran, (2007) 3 SCC 755 and Chandrappa,
Chandrappa Vs State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC
415.It is not necessary to deal with these
cases individually. Suffice it to say that this
Court has consistently held that in dealing with
appeals against acquittal, the appellate Court
must bear in mind the following : (i) There is
presumption of innocence in favour of an accused
person and such presumption is strengthened by
the order of acquittal passed in his favour by
the trial Court, (ii) The accused person is
entitled to the benefit of reasonable doubt when
it deals with the merit of the appeal against
acquittal, (iii) Though, the power of the
appellate Court in considering the appeals
against acquittal are as extensive as its powers
in appeals against convictions but the appellate
( 8 ) criapl185.02
Court is generally loath in disturbing the
findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. It
is so because the trial Court had an advantage
of seeing the demeanor of the witnesses. If the
trial Court takes a reasonable view of the facts
of the case, interference by the appellate Court
with the judgment of acquittal is not justified.
Unless, the conclusions reached by the trial
Court are palpably wrong or based on erroneous
view of the law or if such conclusions are
allowed to stand, they are likely to result in
grave injustice, the reluctance on the part of
the appellate Court in interfering with such
conclusions is fully justified, and (iv) Merely
because of the appellate Court on re-
appreciation and re-evaluation of the evidence
is inclined to take a different view,
interference with the judgment of acquittal is
not justified if the view taken by the trial
Court is a possible view. The evenly balanced
views of the evidence must not result in the
interference by the appellate Court in the
judgment of the trial Court."
5.There is no dispute that the deceased was
married to accused No.1 on 04.05.1998. After marriage she
went to the house of the accused at Khalegaon, Tq.
Georai, Dist. Beed for cohabitation. While she was
cohabiting at the house of the accused on 30.04.2000 her
dead body was found in the well, in the field of the
accused.The accused Nos. 4 and 5 are married sisters of
accused No.1 and they had married prior to the incident.
As per prosecution case the accused in furtherance of
their common intention caused cruelty to the deceased.
Death of the deceased is homicidal and that the accused
are responsible for her death.
6.In the first place we shall consider the
evidence of Pws.2,4,5,6 and 7 on cruelty to the deceased.
The evidence of PW-2 Pramod brother of the deceased is
that after marriage the deceased was treated nicely for
2-3 months and thereafter, the father-in-law (accused No.
2), mother-in-law (accused No.3) of the deceased were
ill-treating and beating her saying that she could not do
the household work. The husband of the deceased was also
ill-treating her on the said count. He stated that he
came to know about the said ill-treatment from the
deceased Sandhya when she had come to Beed after about
3-4 months of her marriage. His evidence further shows
that he reached the deceased to her matrimonial house. At
the time of Dipawali festival he brought deceased to his
house. That time the deceased told him that her husband
(accused No.1) father-in-law and mother-in-law were
making demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing field. He
took deceased to the village of accused after Dipawali,
but accused No.1 her husband declined to allow her to
stay at his house. Her husband insisted for divorce. He
reached the deceased to the house of accused and returned
to Beed. PW-2 also stated that on 10.04.2000 there was
marriage of cousin, therefore, he had gone to bring the
deceased for that marriage. The accused declined to send
( 10 ) criapl185.02
the deceased and demanded Rs.50,000/- and accused did not
send the deceased with him. On 30.04.2000 one Shinde from
village of the accused came and told that the deceased
expired by falling in the well. Then he alongwith his
brother, mother, uncle and sister went to Khalegaon. The
dead body was taken out of well and it was cremated after
postmortem examination. He had given complaint/FIR (Exh.
44).
7.In the cross-examination PW-2 has stated that
his sister Jyoti is given in marriage at the village
Bangali Pimpla which is at the distance of 7 to 8 km.
from the village Khalegaon of the accused. The marriage
of the deceased was settled on mediation of his brother-
in-law i.e. husband of his sister Jyoti. He stated that
he had gone to the village Khalegaon to see the house and
field of accused and after his satisfaction he decided
the marriage of the deceased. Further he stated that
after marriage deceased and accused No.1 her husband had
come to his house for “Yeti-Jati” and thereafter both of
them were sent after offering the presents. After the
marriage the deceased and her husband had come to his
house for about 3-4 times. That time they were staying
at his house as per their convenience and wish and then
he used to send at their house. The deceased and her
husband were coming to his house after intervals of 3-4
( 11 ) criapl185.02
months after marriage. They had come to his house for
first Dipawali festival after marriage. That time he
requested accused No.1 to keep (to allow her to stay) the
deceased at his house for one month and accordingly she
was allowed. The deceased never told him that she was not
ready to go and reside at the house of the accused and
she never said so. Accused No.1 was not coming to take
the deceased to his house. He stated that sometimes he
and sometimes his brother Pradeep (PW-7) used to go to
the deceased at the house of accused. His brother PW-7
had gone to Khalegaon after 5 to 6 months of marriage.
There was no talk between him and PW-7 after his coming
from Khalegoan in respect of the deceased. PW-7 did not
tell him anything about the deceased. He was telling
things known to him about the deceased to his brother
PW-7 and to his mother (PW-4). He stated that he did not
lodge any complaint against the accused when the accused
asked for divorce of the deceased. So also, he could not
assign reason of absence of fact in the complaint
regarding ill-treatment to the deceased on account of
demand of Rs.50,000/- of the accused. He stated that he
came to know about said demand of the accused before six
months of the incident. So also, he could assign reason
of absence of fact in complaint that on 10.04.2000 when
he had gone to bring the deceased, the accused declined
to send her and demanded Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the evidence
( 12 ) criapl185.02
of PW-2 regarding demand of Rs.50,000/- by the accused on
10.04.2000 and earlier to that is material omission in
the FIR lodged by PW-2. Moreover, PW-2 did not lodge any
complaint about demanding divorce by accused from the
deceased. Therefore, evidence of PW-2 regarding cruelty
to the deceased on the grounds referred to above is not
sufficient to state that any of the accused had caused
cruelty to the deceased. On the contrary from his
evidence it appears that relation between the deceased
and the accused particularly the accused No.1 her husband
were good and therefore, they (husband and wife) used to
come to the house of PW-2 and used to stay at his house
as per their convenience and wish and this was continued
for about one year and hence evidence of PW-2 that
deceased was treated nicely only for 2-3 months and then
accused started ill-treating the deceased is not
believable.
8.The evidence of PW-4 mother of the deceased is
that the deceased was treated nicely for about 3 months
after the marriage. Thereafter, the deceased was brought
to their house and at that time she told that accused
were ill-treating her on the ground that she could not do
the household work properly. After panchami festival
deceased went to her matrimonial home and again
thereafter at the time of Dipawali festival she was
brought to her (witness’s) house and it was first
Dipawali after her marriage. Accused No.1 and deceased
had come for that Dipawali. The deceased told that she
was harassed and ill-treated by accused. PW-4 further
deposed that her son Pramod (PW-2) reached deceased to
her matrimonial home and PW-2 told that accused were
beating the deceased. After the second Dipawali festival
deceased was reached to the house of accused, that time
accused refused to accept her saying that they did not
desire to allow her to reside at their house. Accused
asked to take the deceased back to their house. PW-2 told
this fact to her on his returning. She stated that
thereafter, PW-2 had gone to bring the deceased for
marriage of her nephew. Accused refused to send her and
asked for amount of Rs.50,000/-to purchase field. Accused
No.1 demanded the said amount. PW-2 told her about the
said demand. Then after 15 days deceased died. In the
cross-examination PW-4 stated that she could not assign
the reason why it is not mentioned in her statement dated
1.5.2000 before the Police that accused demanded Rs.
50,000/- to purchase the field. So also, she denied that
she has deposed false that deceased was subjected to
cruelty and was harassed by accused. She has also denied
that accused never demanded money to purchase the field.
9.The evidence of PW-5 uncle of the deceased is
( 14 ) criapl185.02
that deceased was treated nicely for 5-6 months after
marriage. Deceased told her mother that accused were
harassing her on the ground that she could not do the
domestic work properly. At the time of Dipawali festival
deceased was brought to her parental home and that time
she told that accused demanded Rs.50,000/- to purchase
field and PW-4 mother of the deceased told him about the
said demand. In the cross examination he could not say
that how many occasions he came to Beed and so also, he
could not state the particular days, dates and months
when he came to Beed. Admittedly, this witness is
residing at Gade Pimpalgaon, Tq. Parali, Dist. Beed and
parental house of the deceased is at Beed. When he could
not tell days, dates and months when he had come to Beed,
it cannot be said that he had occasion to meet the
deceased or her mother (PW-4). So also, he does not claim
that the deceased had told him about harassment to her by
any of the accused on account of demand of Rs.50,000/- or
on the ground that she could not do the
domestic/household work properly. Therefore, his evidence
is of no help to state that accused caused cruelty to the
deceased.
10.The evidence of PW-6 who also appears to be
relative of the deceased and who resides at Beed is that
the deceased was treated nicely for 2-3 months after
( 15 ) criapl185.02
marriage. Thereafter, she came to his house and told
about the ill-treatment to her at the hands of accused
Nos.1 to 5. He claims that the deceased told that accused
were ill-treating for purchasing the field and that they
were demanding Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter, she went to her
matrimonial home and came for Dipawali festival to her
parents house. At that time also she came to his house
and told that all accused Nos. 1 to 5 were demanding Rs.
50,000/- for purchasing the field and on that count they
were ill-treating her. In the cross-examination he could
not tell the date on which the deceased had come to his
house. He deposed that he stated in his statement dated
07.05.2000 recorded by police that after 2-3 months
deceased came to his house and told about ill-treatment
at the hands of accused on account of their demand of Rs.
50,000/- to purchase the field. But, he could not assign
reason of absence of same in his said statement. Thus,
his evidence regarding ill-treatment to the deceased for
Rs.50,000/- by the accused is material omission in his
statement before police and improvement while deposing
before the Court.
11.The evidence of PW-7 Pradeep who is another
brother of the deceased is that deceased was treated
nicely for 3-4 months. Thereafter, she was ill-treated by
her father-in-law (accused No.2) and mother-in-law
( 16 ) criapl185.02
(accused No.3). He stated that when the deceased was
brought to his house she told that her in-laws were ill-
treating her saying that she could not do the household
work properly. Further, he stated that at the time of
second Dipawali festival when the deceased was brought to
their house she told that her father-in-law and mother-
in-law were demanding Rs.50,000/- and were ill-treating
her on that count. The deceased was convinced and sent
to the house of the accused. In the cross-examination he
stated that deceased had come to his house for three
times after marriage, but he could not give specific
days, dates, months and year of her coming to his house.
He denied that deceased was not ill-treated by the
accused and accused did not make any demand of amount.
12.On perusal of the above evidence of Pws.2, 4 to
7 it is clear that according to PW-2 accused No.2 and 3
in-laws of the deceased ill-treated her saying that she
could not do the household work, her husband also ill-
treated her on the said count. Her in-laws were making
demand of Rs.50,000/- for purchasing field and her
husband accused No.1 insisted for divorce. Whereas the
evidence of PW-4 is that accused were ill-treating the
deceased on the ground that she could not do the
household work properly and deceased was harassed by the
accused and the accused were beating the deceased and
( 17 ) criapl185.02
that accused No.1 demanded Rs.50,000/-. The evidence of
PW-5 shows that all the accused demanded Rs.50,000/- and
harassed her on the ground that she was not doing
household work properly. The evidence of PW-6 is that all
the accused ill-treated the deceased for demand of Rs.
50,000/- for purchasing the field. The said witness does
not claim that she was harassed as she could not do the
household work. The evidence of PW-7 shows that only
accused Nos.2 and 3 demanded Rs.50,000/- and harassed the
deceased as she could not do the household work properly.
Thus, there is no consistency in the evidence of above
all the witnesses in respect of demand of Rs.50,000/- by
the particular accused for purchasing the field and
causing ill-treatment to the deceased on the ground that
she could not do the household work properly. It has come
in the evidence of PW-1 Baburao that accused No.2
(father-in-law of the deceased) had purchased the Bagayat
land at the time of marriage of accused No.1, that the
said accused has sufficient income, he is well to do and
his financial position is sound. This shows that land was
already purchased at the time of marriage of deceased and
therefore it was not necessary for accused to demand
money from deceased. There is no dispute that the accused
Nos. 4 and 5 are married sisters of the accused No.1.
They are residing at their matrimonial house. Above said
witnesses have not specifically stated about their
( 18 ) criapl185.02
alleged role in causing cruelty to the deceased. No
specific instance is given by the said witnesses stating
that on a particular day and date accused Nos. 4 and 5
had come to their parental house and in a particular
manner caused cruelty to the deceased.
13.It has come in the evidence of PWs-2,4 and 7
that the deceased and her husband used to come to the
house of these witnesses. This shows that relation
between deceased and accused No.1 her husband were
cordial and therefore they used to come to the house of
above witnesses i.e. parental house of the deceased.
14.For the reasons discussed above oral evidence of
PWs-2,4,5,6 and 7 is not sufficient to infer that all
accused or any of the accused caused cruelty within the
meaning of Section 498-A of the IPC to the deceased.
Therefore, we hold that prosecution has failed to prove
that the accused have caused cruelty to the deceased. The
trial Court has rightly held so.
15.Case of the prosecution is that death of the
deceased was homicidal. To prove the same prosecution has
relied upon the evidence of Dr.Shinde (PW-3) who has
deposed that on 01.05.2000 he was Medical Officer at
Primary Health Centre, Umapur. The police of Chaklamba
( 19 ) criapl185.02
referred one dead body of the woman for postmortem
examination. The dead body was of Sandhya the deceased.
He conducted the postmortem examination on that day
between 3.30 to 4.30 pm. On examination he found external
injuries as follows:
Irregularly distributed bruses (finger
marks) and cresecentric abrasion on neck, on
right side (finger nails marks)on front and side
of the neck on right side and single brushed and
single crescentric abrasion over left side of
neck.
16.According to him on external examination he
found that there was extra vasation of blood beneath of
bruise. There was no evidence of other injuries. The
above said injuries were antemortem. He stated that in
his opinion cause of death was due to cardio respiratory
arrest due to asphyxia due to throttling and accordingly
he issued postmortem report (Exh.46). In the cross-
examination his evidence as regards the cause of the
death is not shattered as he has denied that, he issued
false and incorrect report in collusion with the
informant (PW-2) and that it was not a case of
throttling. Exh.46 postmortem report also shows cause of
death as deposed by Dr. Shinde and it also shows that the
external injuries noticed by Dr. Shinde were found on the
person of the deceased.
17.
Dr. Shinde (PW-3) in the cross-examination
( 20 ) criapl185.02
further stated that he could not say if a dead body, if
thrown in the water will float over the water. He follows
the medical jurisprudence of Parekh. As per medical
jurisprudence if a man falls in a well the body will
drawn and again come upside on the water for 4 to 3
times till the air in the body totally expels.
Thereafter, the body sinks under water and floats over
the water after about 8 to 10 hours. He stated that as
per inquest it was a case of drowning. But according to
him it was a case of throttling. He stated that it was
necessary to examine the lungs to ascertain the cause of
death in the present case. He denied that he did not
mention about the detail examination of the lungs, and
about the floating test of the lungs, though it was
important. He stated that in view of the injuries
mentioned in the column No.17 of the postmortem report
particularly side of thumb and that of fingers, the
person causing injury might have used his left hand. The
nail injuries of fingers and thumb reveals the minor
abrasion, but it reveals that sufficient force was used.
He stated that in order to consider the nature of
injuries, it is necessary to mention the position, and
dimensions as well as directions of the injuries noted.
He stated that it is not necessary that there should be
fracture of hyoid bone in case of application of
sufficient force. According to him when sufficient force
( 21 ) criapl185.02
is used for throttling, the condition of hyoid bone,
lyrings, trachia and thyroid bone are to be noted. In the
present case he has not noted the same. He admits that in
case of throttling the position and condition of heart
chambers plays an important role. In case of throttling
one side chamber will be full of blood and another will
be completely empty. He deposed that he has not noted
that position in the postmortem report. In order to
ascertain throttling the position and the condition of
heart chamber is one of the important and material
aspects. He has not noted the position benearth the
trachia and lyrings. There was no injury to the nose. He
stated that there must be injury to lyrings and trachia
in case the blood was found oozing from nostrils and when
there was no injury to the nose. In case of throttling
there must be a evidence of synosis to over face, lips
and tongue. This is also one of the important aspects to
ascertain throttling. He stated that he has not noted the
same in the postmortem report.
18.Doctor Shinde further deposed that eyes of the
victim of throttling are generally protruded but when the
dead body in the present case was brought to him, its
eyes were closed. The eyes are always closed in the case
of drowning. He has stated that he has not mentioned in
the postmortem report as to if the tongue was swollen or
( 22 ) criapl185.02
not. He admits that the position of tongue is important
factor to ascertain the drowning. He has denied that he
has noted the findings in postmortem report without
examination of the dead body and only on going through
the findings mentioned in the book. He also admits that
provisional certificate showing cause of death must be
issued immediately after the completion of postmortem
examination. But, he has not issued the provisional
certificate showing the cause of death. Considering the
above evidence of the doctor the fact that initially PW-2
brother of the deceased had lodged FIR (Exh.44) that the
deceased committed suicide and the accused abetted her to
commit suicide and the fact that the prosecution has
failed to prove that the accused in furtherance of their
common intention caused cruelty to the deceased and as
such they had motive to commit the murder of the deceased
the above evidence is not sufficient to state beyond
doubt that death of the deceased was homicidal.
Considering the circumstances noted in the panchanama of
spot of incident that there was a bucket with rope, one
pitcher, one basket and one sickle lying near the well
the possibility of falling in the well of deceased while
fetching the water and as such her death being accidental
cannot be ruled out.
19.Once it is held that prosecution has failed to
( 23 ) criapl185.02
prove that death of the deceased is homicidal and
possibility of her accidental death cannot be ruled out
it cannot be said that the accused are responsible for
death of the deceased. Assuming for the sake of arguments
that prosecution has proved that death of the deceased is
homicidal, let us consider whether prosecution has proved
that the accused are responsible for her death. There is
no direct evidence to show that the accused caused death
of the deceased. To connect the accused with death of the
deceased the prosecution has relied upon the cause of
death given in the postmortem report (Exh.46). The said
cause of death is, death due to cardio respiratory arrest
due to asphyxia due to throttling. The said has been
disbelieved as discussed above. As discussed earlier the
evidence of Pws. 2,4,5,6 and 7 also does not show that
the accused caused death of the deceased by throttling
and then threw the dead body in the well.
20.The prosecution has relied upon the evidence of
PW-8 Krishna who had allegedly seen accused No.1 near the
well in which the dead body was found in frightened
condition on the day of incident. Said witness has not
supported the prosecution and he has simply stated that
on that day nobody came to the well when he was working
there. He has also denied the portion marked-A in his
statement before Police that accused No.1 had come to the
( 24 ) criapl185.02
well and he was frightened. The said portion marked-A is
not proved by the prosecution. Therefore, evidence of
said witness is of no help to the prosecution to connect
the accused with the death of the deceased. It has come
in the evidence of PW-1 that at the time of incident
accused No.1 had gone to Aurangabad for B.P.Ed.
examination. So also Investigation Officer has admitted
that during enquiry of A.D. it was transpired that
accused No.2 and his wife accused No.3 had gone for
weekly Bazar. Moreover, on the day of incident accused
Nos.4 and 5 were residing at their matrimonial house.
Therefore, it cannot be said that accused are responsible
for death of the deceased. We, therefore, hold that
prosecution has failed to prove that the accused have
caused death of the deceased.
21.As prosecution has failed to prove that the
accused have caused death of the deceased it cannot be
said that they threw the dead body of the deceased in the
well with intention of screaming themselves from the
legal punishment of offence of murder of the deceased, so
as to attract offence under Section 201 of the IPC
against the accused.
22.Thus, we hold that the prosecution has failed to
prove offences under Sections 498-A, 302 and 201 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC against the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence and rightly held that the the
prosecution has failed to prove said offence against the
accused beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused
of the said offence by the impugned judgment and order.
The view taken by the trial Court is reasonably possible
view and it is not the case that there is an error in
appreciating the evidence. Therefore, there is no ground
to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
acquitting accused. Therefore, appeal being devoid of
merits the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we
dismiss the same. The bail bonds, if any, furnished by
the accused shall stand cancelled.
[S.M. GAVHANE, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
VishalK/ criapl185.02
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution proved cruelty by the accused within Section 498-A IPC?
Whether homicidal death and the accused's responsibility for murder and disappearance of evidence were proved beyond reasonable doubt?
Whether the acquittal warranted interference when the trial court's view was reasonably possible?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Murlidhar alias Gidda and another Vs State of KarnatakaApplied¶27
Murlidhar alias Gidda and another Vs State of Karnataka, 2014(4)Mh.L.J. (Cri)353 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The State of Maharashtra
Arun Appasaheb Narute
Appasaheb S/o. Dhulaji Nartute
Sau. Vithabai W/o. Appasaheb Narute
Sau. Sangeeta W/o. Raosaheb Chormale
Sau. Gangabai Ganesh Takle
T.V. NALAWADE
S.M. GAVHANE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court