Dismissed

The State of Maharashtra v. Bhagirath Mahadeo Bhosale and Ors.

Bombay HC4 Sept 2017APEAL/473/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in criminal appeal against a conviction acquitted the accused. The court held that evidence failed to prove homicidal death or abetment of suicide under IPC, as the deceased's death was suicidal, not due to cruelty contemplated under Sections 302, 306, or 498-A IPC.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits; bail bonds, if any, furnished by the accused were cancelled.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Bhagirath Mahadeo Bhosale and Ors. — Cheque Dishonour | Bombay HC (2017)

¶1

( 1 )

¶2

criapl473.01

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.473 OF 2001

¶5

The State of Maharashtra..Appellant
Through Public Prosecutor (Ori.Complainant)
High Court Bench at Aurangabad

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Bhagirath Mahadeo Bhosale .. Respondents Age-25 years, (Ori. accused)

¶8

2. Mahadeo Nagorao Bhosale, Age-50 years, (Appeal abated against Resp. No.2 as per Court order dated 09.02.2007)

¶9

3. Bibhishan Mahadeo Bhosale, Age-30 years,

¶10

4. Sandipan Mahadeo Bhosale, Age-32 years,

¶11

5. Sou.Chaturabai W/o. Mahadeo Bhosale, Age-45 years,

¶12

All R/o. Wanjarkheda, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

¶13

Mr.S.D. Ghayal, APP for the appellant/State

¶14

Mr.A.M. Gaikwad, Advocate for resp.Nos.1,3 to 5 (absent)

¶15

CORAM : T.V.NALAWADE &
S.M. GAVHANE, JJ.
DATED :04.09.2017

¶16

( 2 ) criapl473.01

¶17

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

¶18

.This appeal has been filed by the
appellant/State against the judgment and order dated
27.07.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur
in Sessions Case No.123/1997 thereby acquitting the
respondents/accused No.1 to 5 of the offences punishable
under Sections 498-A, 306, 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal
Code (for short the IPC) challenging the said acquittal.
During pendency of the appeal respondent No.2/accused No.
2 died and therefore the appeal is abated against him as
per Court order dated 09.02.2007 and as such it proceeded
only against remaining respondents/accused.

¶19

2.Briefly stated facts of the prosecution case,
giving rise to this appeal, are as under:-

¶20

A.The informant/complainant Vitthal Raut (PW-1) is
resident of Mategaon, Tq. Renapur, Dist. Latur. He had
three sons and two daughters namely Vimal and Shobha-the
deceased and at the relevant time of the incident he was
residing with his sons and wife Sarojbai (PW-3). His
elder daughter Vimal was given in Jaygaon Tq. Majalgaon
while deceased Shobha his younger daughter was married to
accused No.1 Bhagirath who is resident of Wanjarkheda,
Tq. & Dist. Latur, on 27.05.1994 and accused No.1 was

¶21

( 3 ) criapl473.01

¶22

residing with his father accused No.2 (since deceased),
mother accused No.5 and brothers accused Nos. 3 and 4 at
the relevant time of the incident. In the marriage
Vitthal Raut (PW-1) had given 5 gram gold and Rs.6,500/-
for the expenses.

¶23

B.It is alleged that after the marriage the
deceased was treated properly for four to five months and
thereafter all the accused started harassing her on
account of bringing Rs.5,000/- from her parental house
for a shop and started assaulting her constantly. After
coming to the parental house the deceased demanded money.
Avinash (PW-5) son of the informant had given Rs.5,000/-
in the year 1995 to accused No.1. However, again said
accused continued harassment to the deceased saying her
to bring money from her parental house and the informant
could not give money.

¶24

C.Further it is alleged that one year prior to the
incident the members of in-laws house of the deceased had
beaten her. Therefore, the deceased was brought at
Mategaon at her parental house by the informant and while
she was at Mategaon accused No.1 had started coming to
Mategaon intermittently and at Mategaon he and deceased
started residing as husband and wife. Before three months
of the incident accused No.1 had come to Mategaon and

¶25

( 4 ) criapl473.01

¶26

said that he would properly maintain the deceased and
said to send her with him at Wanjarkheda and therefore
the deceased was sent with him. Thereafter, PW-1 had sent
his son Avinash (PW-5) at Wanjarkheda on 18.04.1997 to
see how the deceased is living and to bring her, but the
deceased had refused to come as she had menstrual period.
At that time Avinash had asked her whether everything is
alright and she did not talk anything. Avinash told the
same to PW-1. So also, he told about harassment caused to
the deceased and that she was seen residing under
pressure of the members of in-laws of her house.

¶27

D.It is alleged that after two days thereafter
PW-1 was informed at 2.30 pm on 20.04.1997 that the
accused murdered the deceased by hanging. Thereupon, he
alongwith his wife and son Avinash went to Wanjarkheda
village of the accused. After PW-1 and others went to the
village of the accused they saw dead body in the house of
the accused. The information in this respect was given to
Police Station Gategaon. On the basis of said information
accidental death AD case No.9/1997 under Section 174 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered. Thereupon,
in the enquiry of the said AD case ASI Munde came to the
house of accused on 21.04.1997 and prepared panchanama of
spot of incident i.e. house of the accused between 07.00
am to 07.30 am. Thereafter, he prepared inquest

¶28

( 5 ) criapl473.01

¶29

panchanama in the morning between 07.45 to 08.30. He then
sent dead body to the General Hospital, Latur on the same
day where Medical Officer Dr. Preeti Badade (PW-6)
conducted the postmortem examination between 10.45 to
11.45 am and she issued the postmortem report (Exh.66).
As regards cause of death she opined that death was
caused due to Asphyxia due to hanging, and also issued
provisional death certificate (Exh.64). After post-mortem
examination Police Station Officer, Kulkarni seized the
rope prepared with bag of the fertilizer produced by the
Police Constable Shinde under panchanama (Exh.65). It
appears that on the same day statement/complaint of PW-1
father of the deceased alleging harassment to the
deceased as stated in earlier para and further alleging
that on 20.04.1997 in their house the accused at about
13.30 hours caused death of the deceased by hanging her
was recorded, by PSI Asafali Pathan (PW-8). Treating the
said complaint as FIR crime No.22/1997 under Section 498-
A and 302 r/w 34 of the IPC was registered in Police
Station Gategaon against the accused and PSI Asafali
Pathan started the investigation.

¶30

E.During investigation PSI Asafali Pathan
recorded the statements of witnesses including the
statements of mother (PW-3) and brother (PW-5) of the
deceased and other witnesses. The accused were arrested

¶31

( 6 ) criapl473.01

¶32

and subsequently they were released on bail. After
completion of the investigation as PSI Asafali Pathan
submitted charge-sheet against the accused in the Court
of JMFC, Latur for the offences under section 498-A and
302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. The learned JMFC, Latur
committed the case to the Sessions Court, Latur as the
offence under Section 302 of the IPC was exclusively
triable by the Court of Sessions.

¶33

F.Learned II-Additional Sessions Judge, framed
charge against all the accused for the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A, 302 and alternatively under section
306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC to which accused pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried. Their defence is
denial. In the statement under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure the accused No.1 husband of the
deceased stated that the deceased had gynicproblem
prior to her marriage. There used to be constant pain in
her abdomen. She had trouble in the menstrual period. He
had shown her to the Doctor at Latur and Murud. Dilip is
the brother of Shobha the deceased. Dilip had taken
Shobha to Mumbai for medical check-up and treatment.
Doctors advised that she would not become a mother. Since
then, she was annoyed. Moreover, from the cross-
examination of father (PW-1), mother (PW-3) and brother
Avinash (PW-5) brother of the deceased it appears that

¶34

according to the accused they have never ill -treated the
deceased. In their defence accused have examined Sonerao
Mane (DW-1) at Exh.91.

¶35

G.The prosecution examined in all eight witnesses
to prove the charge against the accused and relied upon
post-mortem report and panchanama referred to above.
Considering the evidence adduce by the prosecution the
trial Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove
the offences under Section 498-A, 306 and 302 r/w Section
34 of the IPC against all the accused and acquitted them
of the said offences by the impugned judgment. Therefore,
this appeal by the State.

¶36

3.Learned APP appearing for the appellant/State
submits that within seven years of her marriage the
deceased died. There is evidence of PWs.1,3 and 5
regarding ill-treatment caused to the deceased by the
accused for un-lawful demand. The trial Court should have
accepted the same. Further he submits that evidence of
Dr. Badade (PW-6) and Postmortem report show cause of
death i.e. Asphyxia due to hanging and therefore
considering above all evidence the trial Court should
have convicted the accused at least for the offences
punishable under Section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the IPC as
requested in the appeal and as such prayed to allow the

¶37

( 8 ) criapl473.01

¶38

appeal and convict the respondents/accused Nos. 1,3 to 5
of the said offences.

¶39

4.We could not hear the learned counsel appearing
for the respondents/accused as he was absent.

¶40

5.We have carefully considered the submissions
made by the learned APP and with his assistance we have
perused the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the
impugned judgment and order.

¶41

6.Since the appeal is against the acquittal before
examining the evidence adduced by the prosecution it is
necessary to see whether the acquittal of the accused is
proper and the view taken by the trial Court was
reasonable and probable or otherwise it is necessary to
bear in mind the principle in this respect laid down by
the Apex Court in the case of Murlidhar alias Gidda and
another Vs State of Karnataka, 2014(4)Mh.L.J.(Cri)353
wherein in para No.12 the Apex Court has held thus:

¶42

"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

¶43

( 9 ) criapl473.01

¶44

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

¶45

( 10 ) criapl473.01

¶46

of the appellate Court in considering the
appeals against acquittal are as extensive
as its powers 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."

¶47

7.Basically it is the case of the prosecution as
per FIR (Exh.68) lodged by PW-1 father of deceased is
that on 20.04.1997 at about 13.30 hours in their house
the accused have in furtherance of their common intention
caused death of his daughter the deceased by hanging her.
Denying the same defence has come with the case that

¶48

( 11 ) criapl473.01

¶49

death of the deceased is suicidal. In such circumstances
considering the basic allegations of the prosecution
regarding death of the deceased, it is necessary to see
whether death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal.
To establish that death of the deceased was homicidal
prosecution has mainly relied upon the evidence of
Dr.Preeti Badade (PW-6), postmortem report (Exh.66) and
the evidence of PWs. 1,3 and 5 respectively father,
mother and brother of the deceased. The evidence of Dr.
Badade is that on 21.04.1997 she performed postmortem
examination on the dead body of Shobha at Civil Hospital,
Latur between 10.45 to 11.45 am. Dr. Deshmukh was also
present at the time of postmortem examination. She
deposed that she noticed ligature marks around the right
side of the neck extending from back of neck in center to
anteriorly upto middle part knot on the left side of neck
ecchymosis and bruise is present. She also noticed
fracture to thyroid cartilage, lungs were egorged and
deeply congested, swollen eyes, partially open tongue
inside the mouth, oozing of saliva (reddish Coloured)
from the right due of mouth. She deposed that postmortem
report (Exh.66) was issued and it bears her signature
and signature of Dr. Deshmukh and its contents are
correct. To the question whether the injury noticed by
her is possible by throttling the victim and then hanging
her, Dr. Badade answered that in that case ligature marks

¶50

( 12 ) criapl473.01

¶51

would be absent but signs of asphyxia occurred. As
referred above Dr. Badade has stated that she noticed
ligature marks around the right side of the neck
extending from back of neck in center to anteriorly upto
middle part knot on the left side of neck ecchymosis and
bruise. Considering the same and answer given by the said
Doctor to the above question and also on considering
cause of death given in postmortem report (Exh.66) that
death of the deceased was caused due to asphyxia due to
hanging and signs of asphyxial death would be common in
hanging, throttling etc. and injury given in paragraph
No.17 of the postmortem report that ligature marks around
the neck, it can be said that death of the deceased was
caused due to hanging and in these circumstances
possibility of her committing suicide cannot be ruled
out. Thus, we hold that death of the deceased was
suicidal.

¶52

8.The trial Court framed charge against the
accused for the offence under Section 498-A and 302 r/w
Section 34 of the IPC and alternative charge under
Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC. In such
circumstances the trial Court was required to frame
specific point as to whether the death of the deceased
was homicidal or suicidal and he was required to record
specific finding in this respect. But it had not framed

¶53

( 13 ) criapl473.01

¶54

specific point in this respect and no specific finding
was recorded that the death of the deceased was either
homicidal or suicidal. It appears that trial Court had
framed point Nos. 2 and 3 as to whether the accused in
furtherance of their common intention abetted the
deceased to commit suicide and committed her murder and
both said points were answered in negative. In paragraph
No.15 of the judgment it has been observed by the trial
Court that possibility cannot be ruled out that because
of frustration, despair or sensitiveness deceased
committed suicide. We hold that in case of allegations of
murder the trial Court is required to frame specific
point regarding homicidal death and to record finding on
it.

¶55

9.It is held that the prosecution has failed to
prove that death of the deceased was homicidal and it is
held that her death was suicidal. Therefore, it is
necessary to see whether accused had abetted the deceased
to commit suicide, so as to attract the offence under
Section 306 r/w Section 34 of the IPC against them. Case
of the prosecution is that the accused in furtherance of
their common intention caused cruelty to the deceased
within meaning of cruelty given under Section 498-A of
the IPC and as such abetted her to commit suicide. To
prove the said cruelty the prosecution has relied upon

¶56

the evidence of father (PW-1), mother (PW-3) and brother
Avinash (PW-5) of the deceased.

¶57

10.Now coming to the evidence of above witnesses,
the evidence of Vitthal Raut (PW-1) father of the
deceased Shobha is that the marriage of the deceased was
performed with accused No.1 on 27.05.1994. He had given 5
and 1/2 Tolas gold and Rs.6500/- as expenses. Shobha led
peaceful and happy married life for a period of 4-5
months. Accused No.1 had sent her to her parents house.
She had disclosed that accused were demanding Rs.5000/-
for a shop. He told his son Avinash (PW-5) to hand over
Rs.5000/- to the accused and accordingly PW-5 paid said
amount to the accused. Further he deposed that again
accused started ill-treating the deceased for bringing
money from her parents and that he could not pay money
because of his poverty. Accused ill-treated and beat
deceased. He brought deceased to his house one year prior
to her death. Accused No.1 used to come to his house to
meet deceased Shobha. Some three months prior to the
incident accused No.1 came to his house and promised that
he would not ill-treat her. He then sent deceased
alongwith accused No.1. After about 2 to 2 and 1/2 months
he sent his son PW-5 to go to Wanjarkheda and see how
Shobha was living. At that time accused No.5 mother-in-
law of the deceased told PW-5 that Shobha was having

¶58

( 15 ) criapl473.01

¶59

menstrual period and therefore she could not be sent to
Mategaon. He deposed that Avinash (PW-5) told him that
Shobha was under fear of the accused and she did not talk
with him. He deposed that after two days he was informed
that the accused had murdered Shobha by hanging. On the
same day i.e. 20.04.1997 he reached to Wanjarkheda
village of the accused. On the next day dead body was
sent for postmortem examination to the Civil Hospital.
Funeral was performed at Wanjarkheda. On 21.04.1997 he
lodged the complaint i.e. FIR (Exh.68).

¶60

11.In the cross-examination PW-1 stated that, he
stated before police that accused sent Shobha to his
house some 4-5 months after the marriage. He had stated
before the police, that Shobha disclosed him that the
accused were demanding Rs.5000/- for a shop, that accused
No.5 had refused to send Shobha with his son and that the
accused had murdered Shobha by handing. But he could not
assign the reason of absence of above facts in the FIR
(EXh.68). Thus the evidence of PW-1 in respect of above
facts is material omission in his FIR (Exh.68)/statement
before the police and improvement while deposing before
the Court. Moreover, he has denied that the accused never
demanded Rs.5000/- for a shop and that they never ill-
treated deceased for non-payment of money. He has denied
that he filed the complaint against the accused because

¶61

( 16 ) criapl473.01

¶62

accused refused to pay Rs.50,000/- to him. Another aspect
to be noted is that he has not stated when and how much
amount was demanded by the accused after alleged amount
of Rs.5000/- was paid to the accused by his son (PW-5).
So also, it is seen from his evidence that the deceased
was brought to his house some three months prior to the
incident and when she was staying at his house accused
No.1 used to come for meeting deceased Shobha. This shows
that relation between deceased Shobha and accused were
good and there was no ill-treatment to the deceased.
Therefore, evidence of PW-1 referred to above is not
sufficient to infer that the accused caused cruelty to
the deceased.

¶63

12.The evidence of Sarojbai (PW-3) mother of the
deceased is that after marriage Shobha was given good
treatment for about 5-6 months. Accused No.1 told Shobha
to bring Rs.5000/- from her parents for starting a shop.
As amount was not paid accused No.1 started ill-treating
and assaulting Shobha. Shobha came to Mategaon and told
her that she should pay Rs.5000/- to her husband accused
No.1 for starting a shop as accused No.1 was assaulting
her. She stated that she told her son to go to the house
of the accused and pay Rs.5000/- to accused No.1. She
deposed that all accused were ill-treating and assaulting
deceased for bringing money from her parents. But due to

¶64

( 17 ) criapl473.01

¶65

poverty she could not pay money to the accused. Then she
went to the house of the accused and brought Shobha to
Mategaon. She stated that accused No.1 was visiting their
house frequently when Shobha was residing with her. She
stated that accused and deceased Shobha used to stay in
their house as husband and wife and they were living
happily. She stated that after Shobha went to the house
of the accused with accused No.1 after two days she
received message that accused have committed murder of
Shobha by hanging.

¶66

13.In the cross-examination PW-3 stated that she
does not remember when she had sent Rs.5000/- to the
accused through PW-5 her son. She stated that she had
stated before police that she had sent Rs.5000/- through
PW-5 her son two years prior to the incident. She stated
before police that Shobha disclosed that accused No.1 was
assaulting her and that PW-5 told her that Shobha did not
speak to him because of fear of the accused. She could
not assign reason of absence of above facts in her
statement before police. Thus, the evidence in respect of
above facts of PW-3 amounts to material omission in her
statement before police and improvement while deposing
before the Court. From her evidence it appears that
relation between deceased and accused No.1 were good as
accused No.1 was residing at in-laws house with his wife

¶67

( 18 ) criapl473.01

¶68

as husband and wife and they were living happily. The
evidence of PW-1 shows that all accused were demanding
Rs.5000/- for shop and evidence of PW-3 shows that
accused No.1 was demanding Rs.5000/- for shop. So also,
PW-1 says that he asked PW-5 to pay Rs.5000/- to the
accused while PW-3 says that she asked PW-5 to pay Rs.
5000/- to the accused No.1. Thus, there is no consistency
in the evidence of these two witnesses as regards role
attributed to all the accused of ill-treating the
deceased. The evidence of PW-3 as regards ill-treatment
to the deceased by the accused is vague. Therefore, her
evidence is not sufficient to infer that accused caused
cruelty to the deceased.

¶69

14.The evidence of PW-5 Avinash who is brother of
the deceased is that all accused behaved properly with
deceased Shobha for 4-5 months. Then accused started
demanding Rs.5000/- for starting a grocery shop whenever
he visited Shobha told him that accused were demanding
Rs.5000/- for starting grocery shop. He stated that
Shobha disclosed about demand of Rs.5000/- for starting a
grocery shop whenever she visited Mategaon. He stated
that in 1995 he visited the house of the accused and paid
Rs.5000/- to accused No.1. According to him accused Nos.1
to 5 have started demanding money from Shobha and for
non-payment of money they were assaulting and ill-

¶70

( 19 ) criapl473.01

¶71

treating Shobha.

¶72

15.In the cross-examination PW-5 has stated that he
had stated before police that whenever Shobha met him she
disclosed that accused were demanding money for starting
a grocery shop, and so also he stated before police that
when he visited the house of the accused on 18.04.1997 he
noticed that Shobha was under fear of the accused but he
could not assign reason of the absence of the above facts
in his statement made before police. So also, he stated
that he stated before police the accused were beating
Shobha for payment of Rs.5000/-. He has not stated about
day, month and year when all the accused started
assaulting and ill-treating the deceased Shobha after he
paid Rs.5000/- to accused No.1. From his evidence that
accused No.1 came to their house and deceased was sent
with him and that accused No.1 was visiting to their
house it can be said that relation between accused No.1
and the deceased were good. Therefore, above referred
evidence of PW-5 which is vague in nature is not
sufficient to infer that the accused caused cruelty to
the deceased.

¶73

16.For the above reasons the evidence of PWs.1,3
and 5 who are close relatives of the deceased is not
sufficient to state that accused in furtherance of their

¶74

( 20 ) criapl473.01

¶75

common intention caused cruelty within meaning of Section
498-A of the IPC to the deceased so as to state that
cruelty was of such a nature that it had left no option
before deceased than to commit suicide so as to say that
accused abetted the deceased to commit suicide within the
meaning of Section 306 of the IPC. Therefore, we hold
that the prosecution has failed to prove offences under
Section 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the IPC against the accused.

¶76

17.Once it is held that death of the deceased was
suicidal there is no question of causing death of the
deceased by the accused and committing offence under
Section 302 of the IPC. The evidence of PWs.1,3 and 5
shows that accused caused death of the deceased by
hanging and their evidence is hearsay. Said evidence is
not sufficient to state that the prosecution has proved
alternative charge under Section 302 r/w 34 of the IPC
against the accused. As such prosecution has also failed
to prove alternative charge under Section 302 of the IPC
against the accused. The trial Court has properly
appreciated the evidence adduced by the prosecution and
held that the prosecution has failed to prove offences
under Section 498-A, 306 and 302 r/w Section 34 of the
IPC against accused and rightly acquitted all the accused
of the said offences by the impugned judgment. Thus, the
said view taken by the trial Court is reasonably possible

¶77

( 21 ) criapl473.01

¶78

view and it is not the case that the view taken by the
trial Court is perverse or based on erroneous view of
law. We therefore, hold that there is no ground to
interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Thus, the
appeal being devoid of merits, same is liable to be
dismissed. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. Bail bonds,
if any, furnished by the accused stand canceled.

¶79

[S.M. GAVHANE, J.]

¶80

[T.V. NALAWADE, J.]

¶81

VishalK/ criapl473.01

The State of Maharashtra v. Bhagirath Mahadeo Bhosale and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Maharashtra v. Bhagirath Mahadeo Bhosale 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

The State of Maharashtra Vs Gangadhar Andappa Ghatte and Anr.

The State of Maharashtra Vs Prakash Sampat Shejwal and Ors.

Chandrashekhar Govind Behere and Anr. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.