Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Kishanchand Nasrani and Ors.

Bombay HC14 Sept 2017APEAL/432/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appeal against acquittal of seven accused of murder and cruelty after a bride died of burns within months of marriage. The court found the cruelty evidence vague, the medical evidence insufficient to establish homicidal death, and the possibility of suicide not excluded. Holding the trial court's view reasonable and possible, the appeal was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; acquittal of the accused upheld; bail bonds of the accused cancelled.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Kishanchand Nasrani and Ors. — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

criapl432.01

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.432 OF 2001

¶5

. The State of Maharashtra .. Appellant Versus

¶6

1. Kisanchand Mihamal Hasrani, .. Respondents Age-57 years

¶7

2. Rukhmani Kisanchand Hasrani, Age-50 years

¶8

3. Lalchand Kisanchand Hasrani, Age-32 years

¶9

4. Girdharilal Kisanchand Hasrani, Age-29 years

¶10

5. Maheshkumar Kisanlal Hasrani, Age-25 years

¶11

6. Sushila Kisanchand Hasrani, Age-21 years

¶12

7. Kavita Kisanchand Hasrani, Age-19 years All R/o. Sindhi Colony,

¶13

Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon

¶14

Mr.S.J.Salgare, APP for the appellant/State Mr.V.J.Dixit, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7

¶15

CORAM :T.V.NALAWADE &

¶16

S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.

¶17

DATED:14.09.2017

¶18

( 2 ) criapl432.01

¶19

J U D G M E N T [PER: S.M. GAVHANE, J.]

¶20

.This appeal is directed against the judgment and
order dated 21.07.2001 in Sessions Case No.216 of 1996
passed by the Sessions Judge, Jalgaon thereby acquitting
the respondents/original accused Nos. 1 to 7 of the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A r/w
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for Short IPC).

¶21

2.The prosecution case is as under:-

¶22

A.The marriage of Barkha the deceased was
solemnized at Bhusawal on 15.02.1996 with accused No.5
Maheshkumar. The parental house of the deceased was at
Dhule. Accused No.1 Kisanchand is the father, accused No.
2 Rukhmni is the mother, accused Nos.3 & 4 are brothers
and accused Nos.6 and 7 are sisters of accused No.5.

¶23

B.On 28.05.1996 the deceased Barkha sustained
burns at about 04.30 pm while cohabiting at the house of
accused. Accused No.1 reported the matter to Bhusawal
Bazaar Peth Police Station. On the basis of said report
of Kisanchand/accused No.1, AD No.22/1996 came to be
registered in the said police station. Police Inspector
Jadhav made enquiry into the same. During his enquiry, he
went to the place of incident i.e. the house of accused

¶24

( 3 ) criapl432.01

¶25

which was shown by accused No.1 Kisanchand. Police
Inspector Jadhav prepared inquest panchanama and referred
the dead body for conducting the postmortem examination
to the Municipal Hospital, Bhusawal. However at the
instance of Jitendra (PW-6) brother of deceased, the dead
body was sent for postmortem examination at Civil
Hospital, Jalgaon where Dr. Suresh Wani (PW-2) and
Dr.M.K.Rathod conducted postmortem examination and opined
that cause of death of the deceased was shock due to 100%
deep burn. The postmortem report showed that there was a
ligature mark around the neck of the deceased Barkha.

¶26

C.Police Inspector Jadhav prepared panchanama of
spot of incident and attached kerosene can, matchbox and
pieces of burnt clothes under said panchanama. He made
enquiry with the persons in the vicinity. On 29.05.1996
he made enquiries with the relatives of the deceased
Barkha. After he received advance certificate of cause of
death and postmortem report, he made certain queries to
Dr. Wani as he had noticed the finding of ligature mark
around the neck of the deceased in the postmortem report.
Dr.Wani opined that the strangulation was made before
death and it was made clear that death was caused due to
burns. Police Inspector Jadhav received reply from Dr.
Wani on 29.05.1996.

¶27

( 4 ) criapl432.01

¶28

D.It is after the receipt of above report Police
Inspector Jadhav on 29.05.1996 lodged the compliant on
behalf of State and registered the Crime No.50/1996
against the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 302,201,498-A, 323, 304 and 506 r/w Section 34
of the IPC and carried further investigation. During
investigation he recorded the statements of witnesses and
arrested the accused. He attached clothes on the person
of the deceased which were produced by the Police
Constable under panchanama. He collected sample of hair
of accused. He referred the attached articles and viscera
of the deceased to the Chemical Analyzer, Aurangabad for
analysis and report. On 03.06.1996 he attached articles
from the house of accused under panchanama. He also
requested City Survey Officer to prepare sketch of place
of incident and included the same in the investigation
papers after he received the same. He had taken four
photographs of the place of incident.

¶29

E.After completion of the investigation Police
Inspector Jadhav submitted the charge-sheet in the Court
of JMFC, Bhusawal for the offences punishable under
Sections 302, 201, 498-A, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 34 of
the IPC and under Sections 3 & 5 of the Dowry Prohibition
Act. The learned Magistrate committed the case to the
Sessions Court, Jalgaon as the offence under Section 302

¶30

and 304-B of the IPC were exclusively triable by the
Sessions Court.

¶31

3.The charge was framed against the accused for
the offences under Sections 498-A and 302 r/w Section 34
of the IPC to which they pleaded not guilty and they
claimed to be tried. Their defence is denial.

¶32

4.To prove the charge against accused, the
prosecution has examined in all 11 witnesses and relied
upon the panchanamas, postmortem report and opinion of
Dr.Wani referred to above. The trial Court on considering
evidence and on holding that the prosecution has failed
to prove that death of the deceased is homicidal, that it
has failed to prove that the accused in furtherance of
their common intention cacused cruelty to the deceased
and that it has further failed to prove that accused in
furtherance of their common intention committed murder of
the deceased Barkha acquitted all the accused of the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A r/w
Section 34 of the IPC by the impugned judgment and order.
Therefore, this appeal against acquittal of the
respondents/accused by the appellant/State.

¶33

5.We have heard learned APP appearing for the
appellant/State and learned Senior Counsel appearing for

¶34

( 6 ) criapl432.01

¶35

the respondents/accused and with their able assistance we
have perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution. We
have also perused the impugned judgment and order.

¶36

6.Since this is an appeal against acquittal it is
necessary to refer ratio laid down by the Apex Court in
the case ofMurlidhar alias Gidda and another Vs State of
Karnataka(2014) 5 SCC 730, regarding approach of
appellate Court in such appeal, wherein in para No.12 the
Apex Court has held thus:

¶37

"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
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,

¶38

( 7 ) criapl432.01

¶39

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

¶40

( 8 ) criapl432.01

¶41

in appeals against convictions but the appellate
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."

¶42

7.The case of the prosecution is that death of the
deceased is homicidal and the accused are responsible

¶43

( 9 ) criapl432.01

¶44

for her death. There is no direct evidence to connect the
accused with the crime and the case is based on
circumstantial evidence. Therefore, before considering
the circumstantial evidence it is necessary to refer the
settled legal position as regards appreciation of
circumstantial evidence laid down by the Apex Court in
the case ofSharad Badrichand Sarda Vs State of
Maharashtra - AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622, wherein it has
been held that following conditions must be fulfilled
before a case against accused based on circumstantial
evidence can be said to be fully established:-

¶45

“(1)the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
established.

¶46

(2)the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused, that is to say, they should not
be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty.

¶47

(3)the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency.

¶48

(4)they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except that one to be proved, and

¶49

(5)there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground
for the conclusion consistent with the innocence
of the accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the

¶50

( 10 ) criapl432.01

¶51

accused.”

¶52

8.The prosecution has relied upon the following
evidence and circumstances to connect the accused with
the offences alleged against them.

¶53

a]The evidence of Pws.1,3,4,6 and 7 on
cruelty to the deceased. The List of Gift
Articles (Exh.62 & 63) regarding purchase of
articles.

¶54

b]The evidence of Dr. Wani postmortem report
(Exh.53) and opinion (Exh.54) as regards
homicidal death of the deceased.

¶55

c]Panchanama of spot of incident (Exh.39) and
Map of spot of incident (Exh.67) and CA report
Exh.45 to 48.

¶56

d]Defence plea of the accused is false and
their failure to explain circumstances under
which death of the deceased was caused.

¶57

9. There is no dispute that parental house of the deceased was Dhule and accused are resident of Bhusawal, Dist. Jalgaon. The deceased Barkha was married to the accused No.5 Maheshkumar on 15.02.1996 at Bhusawal. After marriage she started cohabiting with the said accused in the joint family of the accused. While she was cohabiting at the house of the accused on 28.05.1996 she sustained 100% burns at about 04.30 pm and scummed to burns on the spot. There is no dispute about the interse relationship

¶58

( 11 ) criapl432.01

¶59

of the accused as mentioned earlier

¶60

10.As regards the cruelty to the deceased it is
alleged by the prosecution that accused in furtherance of
their common intention harassed the deceased by making
illegal demands referred earlier and as deceased and her
relatives failed to fulfill the said demands they have
committed alleged offences. To prove said cruelty
prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of Pws.
1,3,4,6 and 7.

¶61

11.The evidence of PW.1 Prakash Tolani who is
trader from Dhule is that he was present at the time of
marriage of the deceased and accused No.5 as Parshuram
brother of the deceased is his friend. At the time of
marriage an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- was given as dowry.
One Amar Jodharam Wadhwani is his brother-in-law
(Sister’s husband) and he resides at Bhusawal opposite to
the house of the accused. He stated that on 28.05.1996
the deceased died and on that day he was at Bhusawal and
he was at Bhusawal since 26.05.1996. On 26.05.1996 in the
evening Amar told him that there was ill-treatment to
Barkha on account of demand of Rs.10,000/-. Amar also

¶62

told him that in-laws of the deceased were assaulting and
harassing the deceased on account of money and were
threatening desertion. His evidence further shows that on

¶63

27.05.1996 in the morning the deceased was sweeping the
court-yard of her house. He asked the deceased as to how
she was. She told him that there was ill-treatment to her
at the hands of her in-laws since the date of marriage
and that he should inform her brother. The deceased told
him that there was danger to her life. The deceased
started crying. He told deceased that he was to go to
Dhule on the next day and that he would inform her
brother. He stated that on 28.05.1996 in the evening when
he was to leave for Dhule he noticed crowd in front of
house of the deceased and he came to know that the
deceased was expired. Thereupon he entered the house of
the deceased and saw that the deceased sustained burn
injuries and she was dead. There was odhani around her
neck. There was a knot to it. The odhani was half burnt.
He felt that the deceased was murdered by throttling and
an evidence was created to show that she died of burning.
He also signed on inquest panchanama.

¶64

12.In the cross-examination PW-1 has stated that he
was an accused in Criminal Case No.405/1993 and it was
alleged that on 05.08.1991 he committed theft at Satsang
temple of Kumar Nagar, Dhule. He stated that he was
acquitted in the said case on 18.12.1996. So also, he
stated that Summary Criminal Case No.380/1996 is pending
against him in the Court at Bhusawal and it is alleged

¶65

( 13 ) criapl432.01

¶66

that he committed trespass in the house of Pratap
Sevlani. He assaulted him. Last date in the said case was
26.06.2000. So also, criminal case has been filed against
him for making an attempt to commit suicide in front of
the offiece of the District Collector, Dhule and the same
is pending and it is case No.326/2000. He admitted that
on20.04.1996deceasedBarkhaandaccused
No.5 Maheshkumar had been to honey-moon to Banglore and
Hyderabad and it is so written in his article. He stated
that he does not know if the marriage of deceased with
accused No.5 was performed as per her wish or not. So
also he does not know if the deceased was not ready to
keep her feet in the Thali and hence the ladies from her
side forcibly put her feet in the Thali in which bride
has to put her feet in the Thali at the time of marriage.
Moreover, he stated that he had been to Bhusawal on 2 to
3 occasions at the house of his brother-in-law Amar
Jodharam Wadhwani and on those occasions he did not meet
the deceased. He stated that before proceeding to
Bhusawal on those occasions he did not contact father and
mother of the deceased to ascertain as to whether they
had any message for the deceased. He stated that he did
not meet the deceased at Dhule during 20.04.1996 to
20.05.1996. He stated that after the deceased spoke to
him he did not feel that he should contact her father on
phone as the matter was serious and after the deceased

¶67

( 14 ) criapl432.01

¶68

spoke to him so, he did not tell about it to his brother-
in-law Amar or any person related to his brother-in-law.
He stated that during the period of two hours when he was
at the house of accused on 28.05.1996 he informed the
Police Officer about the talk between him and the
deceased which took place on 27.05.1996 in the morning.
The Police Officer did not reduce the same into writing.
He stated that Police recorded his statement on
30.05.1996. He has denied that he had been to Bhusawal on
28.05.1996 at about 04.30 pm or so.

¶69

13.On perusal of above evidence of PW-1 it is clear
that his statement was recorded by the police on
30.05.1996 thus there was delay in recording his
statement. Moreover, the information given by him was not
reduced in to writing by police on 28.05.1996 in respect
of talk between him and the deceased on 27.05.1996, when
he was present at the house of accused for two hours at
the time of Panchanama. Thus, when he did not disclose
about the alleged ill-treatment to the deceased by her
in-laws, to his brother-in-law Amar and his family
members and when there were number of criminal cases
against him his presence at Bhusawal and meeting to the
deceased on 27.05.1996 in the morning as claimed by him
is not believable and possibility of his deposing against
accused because he is friend of brother of the deceased

¶70

( 15 ) criapl432.01

¶71

cannot be ruled out.

¶72

14.PW-3 Lata sister of the deceased has stated that
after two days of marriage the deceased phoned them from
Bhusawal. She told them that her in-laws were harassing
her for cooler and cupboard. She stated that her father
gave her cooler and cupboard. On 20.04.1996 deceased had
been to Dhule. She stayed there for about one month. She
was sad during her stay as her in-laws were harassing
her. The in-laws of the deceased were greedy. She stated
that the in-laws of the deceased were insisting the
deceased to bring money for scooter from her father. Her
in-laws were abusing and beating her. She stated that the
deceased was saying them that her husband had raised loan
for the shop and her husband was asking for money to
repay the loan. She stated that the deceased was saying
that her husband was assaulting her. She further stated
that on 20.05.1996 the deceased Barkha went back to
Bhusawal. On 28.05.1996 they received a pone call
informing that the deceased Barkha died of burning. Her
father, mother, brother, his friends had been to
Bhusawal.

¶73

15.In the cross-examination of PW-3 stated that
police have recorded her statement on 16.06.1996 i.e.
after twenty days of the incident at Dhule. She was at

¶74

( 16 ) criapl432.01

¶75

Dhule during 28.05.1996 to 16.06.1996. She admitted that
she knows Prakash Nanumal Tolani, the friend of her step
brother Parashram and that after 20.04.1996 the deceased
and accused No.5 Mahershkumar had been to honey-moon at
Bangalore and Hyderabad. She further stated that on
20.04.1996 the deceased had been to Dhule for Mul
ceremony. She informed her father, mother and brother
Jitendra that the deceased Barkha told her that the in-
laws were demanding money for scooter and for repaying
loan of shop. Her father, mother and Jitendra said to her
that no one had talked about money for scooter or
repayment of loan of shop. She told them that the
deceased was saying so. The deceased told her about the
money for scooter and for repayment of loan of shop after
10 or 12 days of her coming to Dhule on 20.04.1996. She
stated that she did not suggest her that since she was
young, it would be better if the deceased would talk with
her father, mother or Jitendra about the money for
scooter and shop. Her father, mother and Jitendra did not
tell her that they did not tell to the police that there
was demand of money for scooter and shop. She stated that
she has not stated before the police that during the stay
of Barkha the deceased at Dhule she appeared sad. She
denied that she was stating false that the deceased
Barkha told her that there was ill-treatment to her at
the hands of her in-laws, she was being abused and

¶76

assaulted, that there was demand of money for scooter and
for repayment of loan of shop.

¶77

16.Amar Wadhwani (PW-4) stated that he knows the
accused before the Court. They are staying opposite to
his house. Prakash (PW-1) is his brother-in-law. Prakash
Nanumal Tolani is friend of Parashram the brother of
deceased. The deceased was married to accused Mahesh. He
had attended the marriage. After the marriage Barkha the
deceased started staying with Mahesh at Bhusawal. The
accused treated the deceased well after the initial
period of marriage. Thereafter, the accused started
assaulting her. The accused were demanding money from
her. The demand of money was for scooter and for the
marriage of sister of Mahesh. Four or five days before
the incident the door of the house of accused was closed.
People had gathered near the house as there was noise of
assault. He stated that after some time Mahesh came out
of the house. He told the persons who had gathered around
that it was his family matter and that the persons should
leave the place. The persons left the place. He also
stated that on 28.05.1996 at about 05.30 pm many persons
had gathered near the house of the accused. The police
were there. He asked the persons as to what had happened.
He was told that Barkha died of burning. When he saw the
dead body of Barkha he noticed knot of dupatta around her

¶78

( 18 ) criapl432.01

¶79

neck and her face had become ugly. He could not stand
there anymore. He came home.

¶80

17.In the cross-examination PW-4 stated that
marriage between Prakash and his sister took place on
31.12.1981. Accused are staying in front of his house
even before the marriage of Prakash. He stated that he
did not know Barkha the deceased, her father,
mother,brother and sister before her marriage with
Mahesh. The marriage settlement talk of Barkha and Mahesh
did not take place in his presence. His brother-in-law
Prakash used to come to Bhusawal even before the marriage
between Barkha and Mahesh. He stated that it did not
happen that the proposal for marriage of Barkha and
Mahesh was suggested by Prakash. He was introduced to the
father and brother of Barkha by Prakash at the time of
marriage of Barkha. He stated that Jitendra, brother of
Barkha had been to the house of the ccused on one or two
occasions after the marriage of Barkha. On those
occasions Jitendra did not come to his house for a cup of
tea. When Jitendra had been to the house of the accused,
the accused did not invite him for a cup of tea.
Whenever, Jitendra had been to Bhusawal, he did not meet
him anywhere. It did strike to me to tell Jitendra about
the ill-treatment of Barkha at the hands of accused. He
did not tell about it to Jitendra as such things (ill-

¶81

( 19 ) criapl432.01

¶82

treatment) are noticed in every house. He stated that his
brother-in-law Praksh had been to Bhusawal on 2 or 3
occasions during 15.02.1996 to 28.05.1996. He did not
know if on these occasions Prakash had been to the house
of Barkha or Barkha had been to his house to see Prakash.
He had informed Prakash about the ill-treatment of
Barkha. He told him only once about the ill-treatment. He
had iniformed about the ill-treatment of Barkha to
Prakash two days it prior to it. He had informed Prakash
about the incident of persons gathering in front of the
house of the accused prior to 4 to 5 days of the
incident. He stated that he did not suggest Prkash to
inform immediately to the father and mother of Barkha
about the ill-treatment. He denied that he never noticed
any ill-treatment to Barkha at the hands of the accused
and that he is deposing false at the instance of Prakash.

¶83

18.Jitendra Asija (PW-6) stated that they are three
brothers. He has five sisters. Barkha the deceased was
his forth sister. Barkha was given in marriage to Mahesh
on 15.02.1996. After marriage Barkha started staying at
Bhusawal. On 17.02.1996 Barkha told him on phone that her
in-laws were harassing her for cooler and cupboard. The
deceased was crying on phone. He further stated that on
19.02.1996 they gave cooler and cupboard worth Rs.7,800/-
to Barkha the deceased. On 20.04.1996 he had been to

¶84

( 20 ) criapl432.01

¶85

Bhusawal to take back Barkha for Akshaya Tritiya. At that
time his brother-in-law Thakurdas Tulsija of Poona was
with him. At that time father-in-law of Barkha told him
that the cupboard given by them was not of good quality
and that they gave the cupboard 10 days late. He told him
that had he sent money, he would have purchased the
cupboard at Bhusawal. On the very day he, Thakurdas,
Barakha, Mahesh and brother-in-law of Mahesh came to
Dhule. Vinodkumar, Brother-in-law of Mahesh, stayed at
Dhule for two days and then went back to Akola. After 4
or 5 days his sister Bina and her husband came from
Ulhasnagar to Dhule. They had planned trip to Shirdi,
Shani-Shingnapur and Saptashrungi Gad. They took Barkha
and Mahesh with them. He again say that after 2 or 3 days
Mahesh went back to Bhusawal. Barakha contacted Mahesh on
phone after Bina had been to Dhule. Mahesh came to Dhule.
He engaged a private car for the trip. The two couples
had been to the three places and came back to Dhule. On
the next day Mahesh went to Bhusawal. At that time Barkha
told him crying that Mahesh had asked her to bring Rs.
10,000/- with her while coming back to Bhusawal. He
consoled Barkha saying that he would see to it when she
will go back to Bhusawal. He further stated that on
17.05.1996 Mahesh had been to Dhule to take back Barakha.
Lalchand, elder brother of Mahesh was with him at that
time. On 20.05.1996 in the morning he noticed that

¶86

( 21 ) criapl432.01

¶87

Barakha was crying. He asked her why she was crying.
Barakha did not tell him anything. He left the house at
08.30 am and went to his shop. On 20.05.1996 in the
evening Barakha went back to Bhusawal with Mahesh. He
also stated that on 28.05.1996 at about 05.00 pm when he
was in his shop, Girdhari, brother-in-law of Barakha
informed him on phone that Barakha died of burning. When
he asked him as to how and what has happened, he did not
say anything and disconnected the phone. He contacted
Mohansing Talwani, a Social worker from Dhule on phone.
His brother-in-law is from Bhusawal. He asked Mohansing
to inquire with his brother-in-law about Barakha and
informed him. He asked his elder brother Suresh to go and
inform his parents about Barakha. After some time
Mohansingh informed him on phone that Barakha had
expired.

¶88

19.He stated that on that day he, his father,
mother and other relatives went to Bhusawal and reached
Bhusawal at about 11.00 pm. Further he stated that when
he saw the dead body of Barakha he noticed that Barakha
had sustained burn injuries on her entire body and
clothes on her person were burnt. He noticed that there
was dupatta around the neck of Barakha. There was a knot
of the dupatta near throat of Barakha. The dupatta was
half burnt. Her face had become ugly. Blood was oozing

¶89

( 22 ) criapl432.01

¶90

from her nose and mouth. He stated that he felt that the
accused harassed Barakha for money, murdered her with the
help of dupatta and later on burnt her body by pouring
kerosene. They were at the Municipal Dispensary till
01.00 am. When he enquired he came to know that there was
only one Medical Officer at the Municipal Dispensary. As
opinion of two Medical Officer is necessary he went to
police station. He told the police that he had suspicion
about the death of Barakha and that the dead body of
Barakha be sent to Jalgaon for postmortem examination.
Accordingly, he submitted an application before the
police. The application was written by Prakash Nanumal
Tolani. He submitted the application to police after
signing it. The police referred the dead body of Barakha
to Jalgaon for postmortem examination.

¶91

20.In the cross-examination PW-6 has stated about
giving application (Exh.50) to Police to send the dead
body of Barakha to Jalgaon. He had fear in mind that the
Medical Officer at Municipal Dispensary, Bhusawal may not
conduct the post-mortem examination properly. He, Suresh,
Parashram, his father and mother have not lodged any
complaint against the accused. He does not know if police
have recorded statements of his father and mother on
29.05.1996 and statement of himself and his brothers on
30.05.1996. The police have recorded his statement on

¶92

( 23 ) criapl432.01

¶93

30.05.1996. He, Parashram, his father and mother were at
Bhusawal from 28.05.1996 and no one from them lodged
complaint at the police station till 03.30 pm on
29.05.1996 PSI Parbt Jadhav (PW-11) has lodged complaint
on behalf of State. On 28.05.1996 at night they had seen
the dead body of Barakha. He denied that as they did not
suspect anything about the death of Barakha they have not
lodged complaint against the accused. He further admitted
that Exh.62 list does not bear any date. He cannot say as
to when Exh.62 was prepared. When the police asked him as
to what articles were given to Barakha he prepared the
list at Exh.62. Exh.62 was written on 30.05.1996 or
thereabout. Exh.62 was prepared with the help of some
papers in the house and his memory. Exh.63 list was
prepared on 20.05.1996. It was written when Barakha had
been to Dhule for Mul ceremony. When he prepared list
Exh.62, panch witnesses were not present. Police did not
tell him or anyone of them to sign Exh.62. He has
submitted bills of cooler, cupboard and transport receipt
before the police along-with list Exh.62. The police took
all these documents without preparing panchanama.

¶94

21.PW-6 further admitted that he had been to
Bhusawal only on 20.04.1996 during 15.02.1996 to
28.05.1996. On 20.04.1996 father of Mahesh told him that
the cupboard sent by him was received late by him by 10

¶95

( 24 ) criapl432.01

¶96

days. He stated that it did not happen that the cupboard
was sent from Ulhasnagar to Bhusawal. The cooler was
purchased at Dhule. It did not happen that the cooler
was purchased at Jalgaon and that the cupboard was
purchased at Ulhasnagar. He had informed his parents
about father of Mahesh telling him regarding receipt of
cupboard and cooler late. He had informed his father and
mohter that Barakha was telling him that Mahesh told her
to bring Rs.10,000/- with her while coming back to
Bhusawal. He further admitted that Mahesh and Barakha had
been to honeymoon at Bangalore and Hyderabad prior to
20.04.1996. They were out for honeymoon for 12 to 15
days. Mahesh had been to Dhule on three occasions during
20.04.1996 to 20.05.1996. Mahesh had been to Dhule on
three occasions as our relatives with Mahesh were
cordial. Accused No.4 Girdhari told him on phone that on
28.05.1996 Barakha set herself on fire. He informed him
so at about 05.00 pm. Mohansing did not tell him that he
was already informed by Prakash Nanumal or his cousin
brother Shamlal about the death of Barakha. He further
admitted that he was not present when the police recorded
statement of his mother.

¶97

22.PW-6 further admitted that he was not present at
the time of pair mojana ceremony which took place at the
time of marriage of Barakha. He has seen the video

¶98

( 25 ) criapl432.01

¶99

cassett of the marriage ceremony of Barkha and Mahesh. He
could not say whether Barkha was reluctant to keep her
foot in a Thali and that she was forced to keep her feet
in the Thali. He could not say if it is clear from the
video cassett. He stated that it did not happen that
marriage of Barakha with Mahesh was performed against her
will. He denied that he is stating false that Barakha was
being harassed for cooler and cupboard, that Barakha told
him that Mahesh told her to bring Rs.10,000/- with her.

¶100

23.PW-7 Sunita Wadhava stated that Barakha was her
friend. Barakha met her after her marriage when she had
been to Dhule. Barakha told her that her in-laws were
greedy. She told her that her in-laws were assaulting her
for money. Barakha told her that her husband had taken
loan for his shop and that he was asking her to bring
money to repay the loan.

¶101

24.In the cross-examination PW-7 admitted that on
the day when Barakha expired she was at Dhule. She was
continuously at Dhule after her death. Bhusawal police
had been to Dhule after 3 or 4 days of the death of
Barakha for enquiry. Police have recorded her statement
on 16.06.1996 after 20 days of death of Barakha. She
could not tell why police have recorded her statement so
late. Police recorded her statement at her house. The

¶102

( 26 ) criapl432.01

¶103

police did not serve her with any notice informing the
date on which her statement was to be recorded. She did
not inform the police that she was willing to give
statement. She does not know as to whether the police
came to her house at the instance of father, mother and
brother of Barakha or on its own. She further admitted
that Barakha told her about the behavior of her in-laws 8
to 10 days prior to her death. She again stated that
Barakha told her about it 20 to 25 days prior to her
death. Barakha told her about her in-laws at her house.
Her house is at a distance of about 3 to 4 houses from
the house of father of Barakha. She did not tell father,
mother, brother or sister-in-law of Barakha about the
complaint made by Barakha against her in-laws. She told
the police for the first time on 16.06.1996 that Barakha
complained to her against her in-laws. She denied that as
Barakha did not make any complaint to her, she kept quite
for nearly about 40 days from the death of Barakha. She
also denied that she is stating false at the instance of
the relatives of Barakha.

¶104

25.We have carefully considered the evidence of
Pws.1, 3,4,6 and 7 there is no consistency in the
evidence of these witnesses as regards demand made by the
accused to the deceased because PW.1 has stated that his
brother-in-law Amarlal told him about ill-treatment to

¶105

the deceased on account of demand of Rs.10,000/-, PW-3
has stated regarding harassment to the deceased by her
in-laws for cooler and cupboard, PW-4 has stated that
accused were demanding money from the deceased for
scooter and for marriage of accused No.6, PW-6 stated
that on 17.02.1996 the deceased had told him that her in-
laws were harassing for cooler and cupboard and on
19.02.1996 they gave cooler and cupboard worth of Rs.
7,800/- to the deceased and evidence of PW-7 shows that
the deceased told her that her in-laws were greedy and
they were assaulting her for money and that her husband
had taken loan for his shop and he was asking the
deceased to bring money to repay the loan. Thus, the
evidence as above of Pws.1,3,4,6 & 7 regarding cruelty to
the deceased is of vague nature and same is not
believable. Moreover, admittedly the marriage of the
deceased was performed on 15.02.1996 and she died on
28.05.1996 due to burns. The deceased died within three
months and thirteen days after her marriage with accused
No.5. It has come in the evidence of PW-3 younger sister
of the deceased that out of said period for a period of
one month the deceased stayed at the house of her father.
If said period is considered the oral evidence of above
witnesses is not sufficient to state that the accused in
furtherance of their common intention caused cruelty to
the deceased. Another reason to hold so is that

¶106

( 28 ) criapl432.01

¶107

considering said one month when the deceased resided at
her father’s house and period of 12 to 15 days during
which she had gone with her husband accused No.5 and
other relatives at Hyderabad and Bangalore it appears
that she resided at the house of accused hardly for one
and half month. Therefore it cannot be said that during
said period accused had caused cruelty to her. Moreover
from the evidence of PW-6 brother of deceased it is clear
that their relation with accused No.5 were cordial.
Admittedly, no relative of the deceased had lodged
complaint against accused about ill-treatment or the
incident in the case. For the above reasons we hold that
the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused
caused cruelty to the deceased for fulfillment of their
unlawful demand of money or articles as alleged.

¶108

26.As regards homicidal death, the evidence of
Dr.Wani (PW-2) is that on 29.05.1996 he conducted the
postmortem examination between 01.00 pm to 02.00 pm on
the dead body of the deceased. According to him on
examination of dead body he noticed that there were Gr.II
and Gr.III 100% deep burns. There was a ligature mark
around the neck 2” x 9”. Deep ligature mark due to knot
of Dupatta, transverse with knot at centre. There was
contusion on left shoulder 1/2” x 1/4” on superior
surface at centre and 1” x 1/4” on lateral surface on

¶109

( 29 ) criapl432.01

¶110

left shoulder. There were planter surface at both feet
burns. According to Dr. Wani above injuries noticed by
him were antemortem. He stated that on internal
examination, nothing abnormal was detected, at the scalp.
There was no fracture of skull. Nothing abnormal was
detected near walls, ribs and cartilages. Pleura was
congested. The larynx, trachea and bronchi were
congested. There was contusion around larynx and trachea.
Right lung and left lung were congested. There was
evidence of smoke particles in alveoli. The weight of
right lung was 350 grams. The weight of left lung was 330
grams. The peritoneum was congested. The heart was
congested. Further he stated that ligature marks noticed
by him in column No.17 are possible by Article No.13
Dupatta. In his opinion cause of death is not due to
injuries caused by ligature mark. The evidence of smoke
particles in the internal organs indicates that the
patient was breathing while she was suffering burn
injuries.

¶111

27.Dr.Wani has further deposed that PSI of
Bazarpeth Police Station, Bhusawal had given him a letter
on 29.05.1996 and making certain queries to him. He
replied said letter as per Exh.54. Exh.54 replied on five
points which are as under:-

¶112

( 30 ) criapl432.01

¶113

Point No.1:Death is within 24 hours and after the
6 hours of her last meal.
Point No.2:Death is due to 100% deep burn, but
Point No.3:Strangulation is given before death.
Point NO.4:Deceased died after burn.
Point No.5:Deceased is not pregnant.

¶114

28.Dr.Wani in the cross examination stated that
inquest panchanama does not show that there was any
ligature mark around the neck of the deceased. It did
strike to him before conducting the postmortem
examination. He did not inquire with the PSI as to how
there is no mention of ligature mark in the inquest
pancanama. The inquest panchanama shows that there was
bunch of hair in the clenched fist. However, he did not
notice any such bunch of hair while conducting the
postmortem examination. He did not hand over bunch of
hair to constable Anil. He stated that accompanying form
shows that the dead body was seen by the Officer on
28.05.1996 at about 05.40 pm. Therefore, in his opinion
the death must have taken place some time between 03.30
pm to 04.00 pm. He stated that the inquest panchanama
shows that the eyes of the dead body were closed. In
column No.13 of PM report (Exh.53) he has mentioned that
eyes were half open. He stated that before conducting the
postmortem examination it did not strike to him as to how
the eyes were half open when the dead body was brought
for postmortem examination. He did not collect the froth

¶115

( 31 ) criapl432.01

¶116

oozing from the nose for the purpose of chemical
examination.

¶117

29.Dr.Wani further in his cross-examination stated
that he has not used the word “strangulation” in the
postmortem report (Exh.53). He has mentioned the word
“strangulation” in Exh.54 (opinion) as he noticed
ligature mark in the external examination and contusion
to larynx and trachea in the internal examination. Exh.53
provides column “Additional remarks”. He could have
mentioned ‘strangulation’ in the column of additional
remarks. He could not tell as to why he did not write
“strangulation” in the column of additional remarks in
Exh.53. He stated that in case of hanging there can be
ligature mark. So also, he stated that there can be
contusion to larynx and trachea in case of hanging. He
could not tell if the medical science has no answer to
the theory that soon after somatic death, if an injury is
caused it would resemble to the injury caused
antemortem. He stated that he agreed with the opinion of
the Author i.e. Tailor’s principles of natural justice of
medical jurispurdence, Vol.I. He agreed with the opinion
of the Author to the effect that “Without circumstantial
evidence, the bare medical opinion in these cases will
amount to nothing”. Ligature on neck should preferably be
photographed before commencement of postmortem. The age

¶118

( 32 ) criapl432.01

¶119

of ligature can be given only if its colour is mentioned.
He stated that in the instant case he has not taken the
photograph of ligature and he has also not mentioned the
colour of ligature. He stated that while describing
injury No.2 in column No.17, though he has mentioned that
the knot was at the centre, he has not mentioned as to
whether the centre was that of throat or neck (front or
back). He has mentioned 100% burns means burns from top
to bottom, from back to front, all over the body. He
could not say as to why the dupatta was not completely
burnt, when all other clothes were burnt. He stated that
the inquest panchanama does not mention injury No.3
mentioned by him in column No.17 of Exh.53. He stated
that since evidence of smoke particles inside the trachea
was seen, the same must have passed through larynx
cavity. Larynx is common for air and food. Where foreign
material is found in any part of the respoiratory track,
the whole track must be investigated. Since evidence of
smoke particles was seen in trachea, it can be said that
the lady was lying in carbon mixed atmosphere for a long
time. The fact that the tongue was seen between the teeth
and the mouth was not gagged by means of cotton ball,
etc. He did not notice any marks on the hands or feet of
the lady to show that they were tied. Left chamber of the
heart has to be examined and noted in case of suspicion
of asphyxia. He has not mentioned condition of left

¶120

( 33 ) criapl432.01

¶121

chamber of heart. It was necessary in the instant case.

¶122

30.PM report (Exh.53) shows external as well as
internal injuries on the person of the deceased as
deposed by Dr.Wani. As regards cause of death it shows
that probable cause of death was shock due to 100% burns.
This postmortem report does not show that strangulation
was given before death as mentioned in opinion (Exh.54)
given by Dr.Wani.

¶123

31.As regards injury No.2 mentioned in column No.17
of postmortem report (Exh.53) though Dr.Wani has
mentioned that knot was at the centre but he has not
mentioned as to whether centre was that of throat or neck
(front or back), it cannot be said that the deceased was
strangulated because in case of strangulation centre of
the said knot ought to be at throat. Moreover, as noted
above Dr.Wani has stated that in case of hanging there
can be ligature mark and there can be contusion to larynx
and trachea in case of hanging therefore, as Dr.Wani has
not used the words strangulation in the postmortem report
(Exh.53), it cannot be conclusively said that ligature
mark and contusion to larynx and trachea noticed by him
were necessarily due to strangulation to state that
strangulation was given to deceased before death. In the
above circumstances having regard to the evidence of

¶124

( 34 ) criapl432.01

¶125

Dr.Wani that there can be ligature mark and contusion to larynx and trachea in case of hanging, possibility of the deceased hanging herself cannot be ruled out. As mentioned earlier death was caused due to shock due to 100% deep burns as mentioned in the postmortem report (Exh.53) and opinion (Exh.54). Moreover, as it is mentioned in Exh.54 against point No.4 that deceased died after burns it can be said that death was caused due to burns. Another reason to hold so is that as noted earlier Dr.Wani has stated that he noticed smoke particles inside the trachea and since the evidence of smoke particles was seen in the trachea it can be said that lady was lying in the carbon atmosphere for a long time it cannot be said that the deceased was strangulated and then she was set on fire. For the reasons discussed above before drawing inference on the basis medical evidence that death of the deceased is homicidal and not suicidal or vice versa other evidence on record i.e. circumstantial evidence in the form of spot of panchanama and map of spot of incident is to be considered.

¶126

32.Exh.39 Panchanama of spot of incident i.e. house
of the accused is prepared by PSI Jadhav (PW-11) in
presence of Prakash Tolani (PW-1) and Raju Jagtap during
enquiry of AD case. PW-11 has stated that kerosene can,
match box pieces of burnt clothes were seized under said

¶127

( 35 ) criapl432.01

¶128

panchanama on 28.05.1996. PW-1 has not specifically
stated that panchanama (Exh.39) was prepared in his
presence but as referred earlier he stated that the
deceased Barakha was lying in the bath room. The evidence
of PSI Jadhav (PW-11) shows that the place of incident
was shown by accused No.1 Kisanchand. Exh.39 panchanama
shows that the spot of incident is house No.389, situated
at Bhusawal City. The said house consisting of dining
hall of 10x12 fts, to its East side there is room of 9x9
fts i.e. bed room, to the East of the said room there is
store room adm. 9X8 fts, to the East of said room there
is 15 fts wide passage and to the South of passage there
are North facing initially store room, then bath room
then latrine and then again store room. The spot of
incident was in the bath room which is to the Eastern
side of the store room and the said bath room is 5x4 fts
and height of its roof is 8 fts. Along Western wall of
the said bath room one can containing three liters
kerosene was found. Walls and roof of bath room were seen
dark due to burnt. The pieces of burnt clothes of the
deceased were found in the bath room. So also, burnt
match stick was also seen. Above articles were seized by
Investigating Officer. From the above circumstances
noticed by the Investigating Officer recorded in the
panchanama of spot of incident it is clear that the
deceased sustained burns in the aforesaid bath room of

¶129

( 36 ) criapl432.01

¶130

the house of the accused.

¶131

33.Exh.67 is the map. It was prepared by Mr.Govind
Aherrao and P.N.Sarwade, City Surveyor of Bhusawal. Said
Sarwade has not been examined by the prosecution and it
has been got exhibited in the evidence of Govind (PW-8)
who is working as City Surveyor at Bhusawal. In the cross
examination he stated that there is door to the Northern
side of bath room. The planks of the door open in the
passage. He could not tell if there is a ventilator above
the door or not. He stated that he has not personally
seen the house. Therefore, his evidence is not sufficient
to state that the prosecution has proved the truth of the
contents of the map (Exh.67). Thus this map is of no help
to the prosecution.

¶132

34.As stated earlier incident took place in the
bath room of the accused. The size of the said bath room
is 5x4 fts. Considering the said small size of bath room
it is not possible for all the seven accused or any of
them to commit murder of the deceased by pouring
kerosene on her person and setting on her fire or to
strangulate her as alleged. Therefore, considering the
fact of finding of the articles i.e. can containing three
liters kerosene, burnt match stick and burnt pieces of
clothes on the person of the deceased which were seized

¶133

( 37 ) criapl432.01

¶134

from the bath room, the possibility of the deceased
committing suicide after pouring kerosene on her person
and setting herself on fire cannot be ruled out. As
mentioned earlier Dr. Wani in his opinion (Exh.54) opined
that strangulation was given before death, death is due
to 100% burns and that the deceased died after burnt and
his evidence that in case of hanging also there can be
ligature mark and contusion to larynx and trachea and
having regard to the fact that dupatta was found around
the neck of the deceased, there is possibility that the
deceased initially attempted to commit suicide by hanging
and on failure she set herself on fire after pouring
kerosene on her person for the reasons known to her
cannot be ruled out.

¶135

35.Exh.45 to 48 are the reports of the Chemical
Analyzer in respect of analysis of plastic can containing
kerosene, partially burnt and broke Kasturi brand match-
box, partially burnt brownish coloured cloth pieces,
Bunch of hair, partially burnt bunch of hair, partially
burnt yellowsih coloured lid of plastic can, having
blackish coloured partially burnt hair sticked to it,
seized from the spot of incident. It appears from the
Chemical Aalyzer’s report (Exh.47) that on Exh.3-
partially burnt cloth pieces kerosene was found and it
was not found on Exh.2,4,5 & 6. The report (Exh.48) of

¶136

( 38 ) criapl432.01

¶137

the Chemical Analyzer shows that Exh.5 & 6 hairs are
human hairs. Exh.5 appears similar hairs to hair in Exh.4
and dissimilar to hair in Exh.1 to 7. Therefore, it
cannot be said that hairs found at the spot i.e. Exh.4 &
5 hairs are similar to the hairs in Exh.1 to 7 i.e. hair
of accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that the accused
were present at the spot of incident. Therefore, above
referred C.A. Reports are of no help to the prosecution
to connect the accused with the alleged offences.

¶138

36.As regards motive to the accused to commit the
murder of the deceased, it appears that according to the
prosecution the accused caused cruelty to the deceased
for unlawful demands as referred earlier and therefore,
she was murdered. As discussed earlier, the prosecution
has failed to prove that the accused caused cruelty to
the deceased. Moreover, as observed earlier the deceased
resided at the house of the accused for a period of one
and half month only. It was suggested to PW-6 brother of
the deceased that as to whether the marriage of the
deceased was performed with accused No.5 against her will
and he replied that it was not so happened. Considering
the said fact, for the reasons discussed above and the
fact that the possibility of death of the deceased by
suicidal cannot be ruled out. It cannot be said that
accused had motive to commit murder of the deceased.

¶139

37.Now coming to the defence plea of the accused,
their defence is denial and it appears from the trend of
cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses and report
given by accused No.1 in the Police Station regarding
death of the deceased, defence of the accused appears
that death of the deceased is suicidal. The prosecution
has not established that all the accused were in the
house at about 04.30 pm when alleged incident has been
taken place. The incident of sustaining burns to the
deceased and her death took place at about 04.30 pm. And
as such said incident has not taken place in the night.
It is observed on the basis of circumstances noted in the
panchanama of spot of incident that the deceased
sustained burns in the bath room in which can containing
three liters kerosene and match sticks were found. So
also, it is observed that there is possibility of the
deceased setting herself on fire after pouring kerosene
on her person after her attempt to commit suicide by
hanging was failed. In such circumstances, there is
substance in defence plea of the accused that death of
the deceased is suicidal. Therefore, it cannot be said
that plea in defence of the accused is false.

¶140

38.Learned APP submitted that death of the deceased
due to burns took place in the house of the accused at

¶141

( 40 ) criapl432.01

¶142

about 04.30 pm. The deceased was in custody of the accused at the relevant time. They have not explained the circumstances under which death of the deceased was caused within three months of her marriage with the accused No.5. Learned APP submits that therefore, there is strong presumption that accused murdered the deceased. To support his submissions the learned APP has relied upon the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs Thakur Singh reported in (2014)12 Supreme Court Cases 211 and in the case of The State of Maharashtra Vs Syed Rahim Syed Janimiya and others in Criminal Appeal No.318/2001 dated 04.08.2017 decided by this Court. The facts of both the cases relied upon by the learned APP are different. In both the cases death of the deceased had taken place in the night. Here it is not the case that deceased was in the exclusive custody of her husband in the night and in the night her death was caused due to burns. It appears that in the house of accused there are more than seven family members and as observed earlier it is not specifically brought on record by the prosecution that the particular accused were present in the house at the material time of incident. As stated earlier report (Exh.76) lodged by the accused No.1 to the police station regarding death of the deceased shows that deceased set herself on fire on pouring kerosene on her person and died. In the said

¶143

( 41 ) criapl432.01

¶144

report he cannot tell why she set herself on fire after
pouring kerosene. The said information was given in the
Police Station, Bhusawal at 05.30 pm immediately after
the incident. In such circumstances, it can be said that
the accused have explained the circumstances under which
death of the deceased was caused. Therefore, no
presumption under section 106 of the Evidence Act that
the accused have committed murder of the deceased can be
raised in favour of the prosecution as argued by the
learned APP. As such ratio laid down in the case State of
Rajasthan (Supra) and State of Maharashtra (Supra) relied
upon by the learned APP can not be made applicable to
this case.

¶145

39.For all the reasons discussed above on
considering the evidence referred to above adduced by the
prosecution including the Medical evidence i.e.
postmortem report (Exh.53) and opinion (Exh.54) given by
Dr.Wani (PW-2) we hold that the prosecution has failed to
prove beyond doubt that the death of the deceased was
homicidal and on the basis of evidence possibility of
death of the deceased being suicidal cannot be ruled
out. So also, we hold that the prosecution has failed to
prove that accused caused cruelty to the deceased, as
discussed earlier. Moreover, it has failed to prove
beyond doubt that the accused are responsible for death

¶146

( 42 ) criapl432.01

¶147

of the deceased. We, therefore, hold that the prosecution
has failed to prove the offences under Section 498-A and
302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
The trial Court has rightly held so. So also, it has
rightly held that the prosecution has failed to prove
that the death of the deceased was homicidal and it has
rightly acquitted the accused of the offences under
Sections 498-A and 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC by the
impugned judgment and order. The said view taken by the
trial Court is reasonable and possible view. There is no
error in appreciating the evidence by the trial Court.
Therefore, there is no justifiable ground to interfere
with the impugned judgment and order of acquittal of the
accused for the offences with which they were charged.
Therefore, appeal being devoid of merits, the same is
liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we dismiss the same.
The bail bonds of the accused are cancelled.

¶148

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.]

¶149

[T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶150

VishalK/ criapl432.01

The State of Maharashtra v. Kishanchand Nasrani and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Kishanchand Nasrani and Ors.

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

Renuka Vijay Mahagavali Vs Vijay Kisan Mahagavali

Mohan Anandrao Deshmukh Vs Naveli Mohan Deshmukh

Archana @ Madhuri Abhijit Ambilwade Vs Abhijit Asaram Abbilwade

Dnyaneshwar Sheshrao Patange Vs Swati Dnyaneshwar Patange

Sou Rama Hemu Ghodke and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Savita Manoj Chaudhar Vs the State of Mah and Anr.