Allowed

Pramila Tanaji Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Bombay HC12 Aug 2021APEAL/427/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction allowed the criminal appeal and quashed the bail rejection order. The Court found the lower court erred in attributing indiscriminate assault to the appellant. Based on the prosecution's own report, the appellant's role was limited to verbal abuse and pushing a child, insufficient for murder charge bail denial. Bail granted with conditions.

What did the court decide?

The appeal allowed; impugned bail rejection order quashed; appellant released on bail on a surety bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions.

Pramila Tanaji Jadhav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

1/11

¶2

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 427 OF 2021

¶5

Sou. Pramila Tanaji Jadhav Age : 38, Occ : Housewife, R/o. Soni, Tal. Miraj, Dist. Sangli ...Appellant At present Sangli District Jail:2, Sangli (Accused No.3)

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra 2. Smt. Akkatai Ananda Kadam R/o: Soni, Tal : Miraj, Dist. Sangli (Through C.R. No. 359/2019 Miraj Rural Police Station, District Sangli) ....Respondents

¶8

¶9

Mr.Kedar J. Patil for appellant. Mr. S.R. Shinde, APP for respondent No.1-State. Mr.Karansingh Rajput, Advocate appointed by Court for respondent No.2.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE &

¶12

Digitally signed by SHRADDHA SHRADDHA KAMLESH KAMLESH TALEKAR TALEKAR Date: 2021.08.13 10:36:04 +0530

¶13

N.J. JAMADAR, JJ.

¶14

Reserved for Judgment on : 17^th July 2021. Judgment Pronounced on : 12^th August 2021.

¶15

JUDGMENT (PER N.J. JAMADAR, J.)

¶16

The legality, propriety and correctness of an order dated 5^th September 2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli in Criminal Bail Application No.1121 of 2019 preferred by the appellant-accused for enlarging her on bail in connection with

¶17

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶18

2/11

¶19

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶20

C.R. No.359/2019 registered with Miraj Rural Police Station for the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 324, and 317 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘the Penal Code’) and section 3(2)(5-A) of the Scheduled Castes and the Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘SCST Act’) is assailed in this appeal.

¶21

The background facts leading to this appeal can be stated in brief as under :-

¶22

(a) Rupali (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), the daughter of Akkatai, the frst informant, was a divorcee. Priyal was born to her by her quondam husband. After divorce, the deceased and Priyal came to reside with the frst informant at Soni, Taluka Miraj.

¶23

(b) Tanaji (accused no.1), the husband of Sou. Pramila (accused No.3), the appellant, allegedly developed extramarital relations with the deceased. A daughter namely, Angel was born to the deceased by Tanaji (accused No.1). The deceased insisted Tanaji (accused No.1) to marry her, as promised, and look-after her, Priyal and Angel. Tanaji started

¶24

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶25

3/11

¶26

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶27

to avoid the deceased. Eventually, Tanaji refused to solemnize the marriage with the deceased on the count that she belonged scheduled caste and even disowned the paternity of Angel.

¶28

(c) On 17^th September 2019, the deceased went to the house of the accused accompanied by Priyal and Angel. Tanaji (accused No.1) tried to push the deceased and her daughters out of their house. As the deceased refused to leave the house of the accused, they abused the deceased. Tanaji (accused No.1) and Prashant (accused No.2) started to assault the deceased. Tanaji (accused No.1) gave a blow by means of a partly burnt frewood on the head of the deceased. When Priyal went to the rescue of the deceased, the accused assaulted Priyal as well by means of the frewood. The accused also assaulted Angel. The deceased and her daughters sustained bleeding injuries. They were shifted to hospital and eventually the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

¶29

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶30

4/11

¶31

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶32

(d) After charge-sheet came to be lodged,

¶33

accused No.3 preferred second application for bail, i.e., Criminal Bail Application No.1121 of 2019. By the impugned order, the learned Special Judge was persuaded to reject the application holding that there was material to indicate that all the accused, including the appellant, had indiscriminately assaulted all the three victims resulting in death of the deceased and hospitalization of the victim girls for about a month.

¶34

(e) Being aggrieved, the accused no.3 Pramila is in appeal.

¶35

Admit. Taken up for fnal disposal.

¶36

We have heard Mr.Kedar Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. S.R. Shinde, the learned APP for the State and Mr. Karansingh Rajput, the learned counsel appointed by the Court to espouse the cause of the respondent No.2-frst informant. With the assistance of the learned counsels for the parties, we have perused the material on record including the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its accompaniments.

¶37

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶38

5/11

¶39

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶40

Mr. Patil, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Special Judge committed a manifest error in attributing the role of indiscriminate assault to accused No.3Pramila. Such a fnding which vitiated the consideration, according to Mr. Patil, is not at all borne out by the record. Taking the Court through the statements of witnesses, especially the statement of Priyal, the injured victim, recorded in question-answer form, Mr. Patil, strenuously urged that no role of assault of whatsoever nature has been attributed to accused No.3. In the circumstances, the learned Special Judge could not have refused to exercise the discretion in favour of accused No.3.

¶41

Mr. Shinde, the learned APP, on the other hand, supported the impugned order. It was urged that the entire occurrence is required to be taken into account as a whole. A hapless lady and her minor children were mercilessly beaten up. A three year infant was also not spared. As the accused shared the common intention to commit the murder, the learned Special Judge was within her rights in rejecting the bail application, submitted Mr. Shinde.

¶42

Mr.Rajput, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 also took the Court through the statements of witnesses, especially that of Priyal, and sought to controvert that the accused No.3 played no

¶43

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶44

6/11

¶45

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶46

part in the incident. Mr. Rajput would further urge that since this court is exercising the appellate jurisdiction, in the absence of any glaring infrmity in the impugned order, this Court may not be justifed in delving into the aspect of grant of bail as a court of frst instance would do.

¶47

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions. From the perusal of the report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and its accompaniments, it becomes evidently clear the tenor of prosecution case is that, on the day of occurrence, the deceased and the victim girls went to the house of the accused. They entered the house of the accused to the consternation of the accused. An altercation ensued. The deceased demanded accused No.1 Tanaji to solemnize marriage, as promised, and bear the expenses of livelihood of the deceased and her daughters, including their education. The accused asked the deceased to leave their home. Upon her refusal, the accused allegedly abused and assaulted the deceased. It is imperative to note that the incident allegedly occurred within the precincts of the house of the accused No.1-Tanaji. The deceased and the victim girls were found lying in injured condition in the said house, before they were shifted to Civil Hospital, Miraj.

¶48

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶49

7/11

¶50

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶51

In this context, the statement of Priyal, the injured victim assumes critical signifcance. The rest of the witnesses have deposed to the fact that they heard the commotion emanating from the house of the accused, and the deceased and the victim girls were thereafter found thereat in injured condition. The statement of Priyal reveals that the accused, including accused No.3-Pramila, started to abuse the deceased when she refused to move out of the house of accused Tanaji. Initially, accused Tanaji and accused No.2-Prashant started to beat the deceased. Accused No.1 Tanaji took up a partly burnt frewood and gave a forceful blow on the head of the deceased. At that time, accused No.2 Prashant had caught hold the deceased. When Priyal went to rescue, accused No.1-Tanaji gave a blow on her head by means of the frewood. Her sister Angel was crying. At that moment, according to Priyal, accused No.3-Pramila pushed Angel, who fell on the ground. Thereafter, accused No.2-Prashant snatched the frewood from accused No.1-Tanaji took the frewood and gave a blow on the head of Angel.

¶52

The aforesaid narration of the occurrence indicates that the assault was principally mounted by accused No.1-Tanaji and accused No.2-Prashant. Initially, only accused No.1-Tanaji was

¶53

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶54

8/11

¶55

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶56

armed with partly burnt frewood. The role attributed to accused No.3-Pramila is that of hurdling abuses, when the deceased refused to move out of their house, and, subsequently, pushing Angel, after the accused No.1 Tanaji and accused No.2-Prashant assaulted the deceased and Priyal. Undoubtedly, the presence of accused No.3 Pramila at the scene of occurrence cannot be disputed. Nor can the prosecution version that the accused No.3 Pramila abused the deceased be viewed with suspicion.

¶57

The question which, at this stage, wrenches to the fore is the degree of gravity of accusation against accused No.3-Pramila. At the highest, the role attributed to accused No.3 Pramila is that of pushing Angel, who started crying noticing the assault upon her mother and sister. The role attributed to accused No.3-Pramila is, thus, of relatively lesser degree. It is not the case that the accused No.3-Pramila was armed. Nor is it alleged that accused No.3 Pramila unleashed assault, apart from pushing Angel.

¶58

The submission on behalf of the prosecution that the accused No.3-Pramila has also shared with the assailants the common intention to commit the murder of the deceased and attempt to commit the murder of the victim girls, can be legitimately appreciated at the conclusion of the trial. At this juncture, from

¶59

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶60

9/11

¶61

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶62

the stated participation of Pramila in the occurrence, when her presence at the place of occurrence was the most natural, drawing of an inference of prior meeting of minds is rather contestable. To sum up, in the backdrop of the role attributed to accused No.3Pramila, in our view, a prima-facie case for grant of bail is made out qua the accused No.3-Pramila. The fnding recorded by the learned Special Judge that the accused No.3 also participated in indiscriminate assault does not seem to be borne out by the record. The exercise of discretion by the learned Special Judge thus needs to be corrected.

¶63

The appellant has been in custody since 18^th July 2019. The appellant is a woman. Investigation is complete for all intent and purpose. Apprehension on the part of the prosecution as regards tampering with evidence and feeing away from justice can be taken care of by imposing appropriate conditions.

¶64

For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded to interfere with the impugned order and allow the appeal.

¶65

Hence, the following order :

¶66

O R D E R

¶67

(a) The appeal stands allowed.

¶68

(b) The impugned order, dated 24^th November

¶69

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶70

10/11

¶71

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶72

2019, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, stands quashed and set aside.

¶73

(c) The accused No.3, Sou. Pramila Tanaji Jadhav be released on bail on furnishing P.R. bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- and one or two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli.

¶74

(d) The accused shall not contact the frst informant-Akkatai, Priyal and Angel.

¶75

(e) The accused shall not tamper with prosecution evidence and give threat or inducement to any of the prosecution witnesses.

¶76

(f) The accused shall regularly attend the proceeding arising out of C.R. No.359/2019 before the concerned Court.

¶77

(g) The accused shall furnish the details of the address where she would reside, after release on bail, and intimate the change in address, as and when it occurs in future.

¶78

(h) The accused shall fle an undertaking in the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

¶79

Shraddha Talekar PS

¶80

11/11

¶81

cri.apeal--427-2021-J.doc

¶82

Sangli to the effect that she will strictly abide by the aforesaid conditions (d) to (g), within a period of two

¶83

weeks from the date of her release.

¶84

The observations made hereinabove are prima-facie in nature and confned to the adjudication of present appeal.

¶85

We place on record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by Mr. Karansingh Rajput, the learned counsel appointed for respondent No.2. The Secretary, High Court Legal Service Committee, Bombay shall pay the fees quantifed at Rs.10,000/- to Mr.Rajput, within a period of two weeks from the date of the communication of this judgment.

¶86

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this judgment.

¶87

[ N.J. JAMADAR, J. ] [ S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶88

Shraddha Talekar PS

Pramila Tanaji Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila Tanaji Jadhav v. the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zunzar S/O. Suresh Pawar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sanjay Rajbahadur Agrawal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Sandhu Sarwan Singh Santok Singh Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Arun Hindurao Sawant Vs the State of Maharashtra

Snehal Abhaykumar Govekar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Dharmendra Chhanalal Patel and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.