Partly allowed

Ramesh Ashok Mashalkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Jan 2023APEAL/246/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court acquitted Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 of all charges due to insufficient evidence of specific dowry demand against them. Conviction against Appellant No. 1 was maintained, but the sentence for dowry death under Section 304-B IPC was reduced from 10 to 7 years.

What did the court decide?

Appellants Nos. 2 and 3 acquitted. Appellant No. 1's conviction maintained; sentence under S. 304-B IPC reduced to 7 years.

Ramesh Ashok Mashalkar and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra — Dowry and Cruelty | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶2

1 of 26

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 246 OF 2019

¶5

1. Ramesh Ashok Mashalkar

¶6

2. Kashibai Ashok Mashalkar

¶7

3. Ashok Narayan Mashalkar..Appellants.

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Maharashtra..Respondent

¶10

Mr. Viresh V. Purwant a/w. Rushikesh Kale, for Appellants.
Smt. M. R. Tidke, APP for State/Respondent.

¶11

CORAM : SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.
DATE : 18 JANUARY 2023

¶12

JUDGMENT:

¶13

1.The Appellants have challenged the Judgment and order

¶14

dated 14/01/2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Solapur, in Sessions Case No.205 of 2017. The Appellant Nos.1 to

¶15

3 were the original accused Nos. 1 to 3 before the Trial court. The
Appellants were convicted and sentenced as follows:

¶16

Digitally signed by VINOD VINOD BHASKAR BHASKAR GOKHALE GOKHALE Date: 2023.01.23 17:36:57 +0530

¶17

i)The Appellants were convicted for commission
of offence punishable U/s.498-A of the I.P.C. and

¶18

Gokhale

¶19

2 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶20

were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for 15
days.

¶21

ii)The Appellants were convicted for commission
of offence punishable U/s.306 of the I.P.C. and
were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for one
month.

¶22

iii)The Appellants were convicted for commission
of offence punishable U/s.323 of the I.P.C. and
were sentenced to suffer S.I. for six months and
to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further S.I. for 15
days.

¶23

iv)The Appellants were convicted for commission
of offence punishable U/s.304-B of the I.P.C. and

¶24

3 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶25

were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of
payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for two
months.

¶26

All the substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The Appellants were given set off U/s.428 of the
Cr.p.c.

¶27

2.Heard Shri. Purwant, learned counsel for the Appellants
and Smt. Tidke, learned APP for the State/Respondent.

¶28

3.The prosecution case is that, the deceased Anjali had got
married with the Appellant No.1 on 01/05/2016. There are
allegations that, there was a demand of a tempo and on non
fulfillment of that demand, Anjali was harassed. In the month of
July 2016, she was sent to her uncle’s house. That time, she had
complained of the harassment. Her uncles took her to her
matrimonial house. After that, in January 2017, for the festival of
Sankranti she came to her uncle’s house. The Appellants did not
take her back to her matrimonial house till April 2017, ultimately

¶29

4 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶30

her uncles took her to her matrimonial house in the month of April
2017. After that, on 02/05/2017 she committed suicide in her
matrimonial house. The F.I.R. was lodged at Vijapur Naka police
station vide C.R.No.252 of 2017. The Appellants were arrested.
The investigation was carried out. The postmortem examination
was conducted. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and
at the conclusion of the investigation the charge-sheet was filed.
The case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

¶31

4.During trial, the prosecution examined 9 witnesses
including two uncles of the deceased, two neighbours of the
Appellants, the Medical Officer who conducted the postmortem
examination and the Investigating officer. The defence of the
Appellants was of total denial. On behalf of the Appellants, the
defence witness namely Anand Jadhav was examined to show that
he had taken down the dead body found in hanging condition.
Learned Judge, after considering the evidence on record and after
hearing the parties, recorded his conviction and sentence, as
mentioned earlier.

¶32

5 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶33

5.The F.I.R. was lodged by Anjali’s uncle Chandrakant

¶34

Metkari. He was examined as PW-1. He has deposed as follows:

¶35

He had three brothers. Anjali was daughter of his
brother Anil, who had died in the year 2000. Anjali was born after
40 days from Anil’s death. Her mother Archana remarried. Anjali
was looked after by PW-1. On 01/05/2016, she got married to the
Appellant No.1. Anjali was born in the year 2000. The Appellants
were residing in Vijapur Naka Zopadpatti No.2. One and half
months prior to the marriage, there was a meeting. It was attended
by PW-2 Vishwas Gaikwad, PW-3 Dattatray Ganmote, the
Appellant No.1’s uncle Rajendra Mashalkar, Rajendra’s wife and
son. The meeting was also attended by PW-1’s brothers
Nandkumar and Mahesh. PW-1 has further deposed that the
Appellant Nos.1 to 3 demanded a tempo for the Appellant No.1.
PW-1 and others assured that they would buy a tempo after the
marriage. The marriage took place and Anjali went to reside with
the Appellants. She stayed in the matrimonial house for about two
months. On 12/07/2016, in the night, Anjali was sent back to
PW-1’s house. It was alleged that, she was beaten before that. On

¶36

6 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶37

enquiry, she told that she was sent back on the demand of tempo.
PW-1 and other family members kept her with them for about two
days. The Appellants did not approach them to take her back.
Therefore, PW-1, his brothers and the aforementioned two
neighbours went to the house of the Appellants. PW-1 and others
told the Appellants that they would buy a tempo after a child is
born to Anjali. They requested the Appellants not to cause physical
and mental harassment to Anjali. According to PW-1, even
thereafter the Appellants were causing mental and physical
harassment to Anjali on demand of tempo. This was happening
frequently and there used to be meetings between them.

¶38

In January 2017, PW-1 and others brought Anjali back
to their house for the festival of Sankranti. For about two months,
PW-1 kept her in their house. They had sent a message to the
Appellant No.1, but he had told them that unless he was given a
tempo, Anjali should not be sent back to her matrimonial house.
According to PW-1, since the Appellant No.1 was in their relation,
they did not make any complaint. This harassment went on for
about 5 to 6 months. Finally, on 07/04/2017, PW-1 and others

¶39

7 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶40

again took Anjali to the Appellants’ house. On 02/05/2017, at
about 6.30p.m. PW-1 was telephonically told by his wife that
Anjali had committed suicide by hanging herself in her
matrimonial house. PW-1 went to the Appellants’ house. PW-1’s
wife Jayashree and brother Mahesh were present there. Mahesh
told PW-1 that he climbed the wall of the house, went inside and
pushed the door of the room. He saw that Anjali was hanging from
the ceiling. She had hanged herself with her saree. There were
injuries on her person. PW-1 then took Anjali in his rickshaw to the
Civil Hospital, Solapur. A doctor examined her and declared her
dead. On 03/05/2017, PW-1 gave his F.I.R. It is produced on
record at Exhibit 40.

¶41

In the cross-examination, he deposed that, there was
no document executed at the time of the meeting before the
marriage regarding exchange of gifts. Most of the cross-
examination was in the nature of suggestions; which he had
denied. However, one important omission from his F.I.R. was put to
him. He was asked, why he had not mentioned in the F.I.R. that, in
the meeting the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 had demanded a tempo and

¶42

201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶43

8 of 26

¶44

that PW-1 and others had assured that they would buy a tempo
after the marriage. PW-1 could not assign any reason as to why it
was not mentioned in that complaint.

¶45

6.PW-4 Mahesh Metkari was another uncle of the victim.
He has deposed the background as was deposed by PW-1. He has
stated that, the appellants were residing in the same locality. One
month prior to the marriage, there was a meeting which was
attended by the victim’s uncles and neighbours PW-2 and PW-3. All

¶46

the Appellants were present in the meeting. In the meeting, it was
agreed that the Appellants would be given one and half tola gold
and that PW-1 and 4 would bear marriage expenditure. He has
further deposed that, Appellant No.3 Ashok said that since the
Appellant No.1 was a tempo driver, they should buy a tempo for
him. PW-4 and others assured that they would buy a tempo within
two months. After the marriage, Anjali started residing with the
Appellants. According to PW-4, she was illtreated for the demand
of tempo. The Appellants used to quarrel with Anjali and used to
beat her.

¶47

9 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶48

7.On 12/07/2016, in the midnight, Anjali was beaten and
driven out of the house. She came to her uncles’ house and
informed them that the Appellants had told her not to come back
without a tempo. After two days, PW-1 to PW-4 went to the
Appellants’ house and assured them that they would buy a tempo
in few days. According to him, this incident occurred 5 to 6 times
and every time they called a meeting and had taken Anajli back to
stay with the Appellants.

¶49

8.On 01/05/2017, the Appellant No.2 came to his grocery
shop and told him that Anjali was not opening the door. PW-4 then
went to the Appellants’ house. There was a gate and the door of
the gate was latched from inside. PW-4 then climbed the wall and
went inside. Anjali’s room was not locked. He pushed the door and
opened it. He saw that Anjali was hanging from the ceiling. He
took her down with the help of PW-1’s wife Jayashree. He saw
there were injuries on Anjali’s person. She was taken to the Civil
Hospital, Solapur, but she was declared dead. This witness’s
statement was recorded on 14/05/2017. The police did not make
any inquiry with him between 02/05/2017 to 13/05/2017. His

¶50

10 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶51

statement was also recorded by the Magistrate under section 164
of the Cr.p.c. It is produced on record at Exhibit 46.

¶52

In the cross-examination, he denied that, before

¶53

marriage, Anjali was residing with her mother Archana at
Pandharpur. His cross-examination consists of only suggestions;
which he had denied.

¶54

9.PW-2 Vishwas Gaikwad was the Appellants’ neighbour.
He knew PW-1, his family, as well as, the appellants. He had
attended Anjali’s marriage with the appellant No.1 on
01/05/2016. He has deposed that, he had attended the meeting
held two months before the marriage, wherein, it was agreed that
the expenditure for the marriage would be borne by Anjali’s
uncles. The Appellants had demanded gold and a tempo for the
Appellant No.1 and Anjali’s uncle had agreed to give that after her
marriage. According to him, the appellants did not treat her well
for the demand of tempo. They were illtreating her and drove her
out of the house. She was driven out of the house on two to three
occasions. There was a meeting in the house of Appellants which

¶55

11 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶56

he had attended. The Appellant No.1 was working as a driver on
PW-2’s tempo, previously. He asked the appellant No.1 to look
after Anjali properly and drive PW-2’s tempo till PW-1 could buy a
tempo for him. However, there was no change in the behaviour of
the appellants. According to him, the Appellants were illtreating
Anjali by saying that, she did not know cooking and that she did
not get up early.

¶57

In the cross-examination, he stated that, he did not
know whether there was a document executed for giving a tempo
and gold. There were 20 to 25 persons in the meeting. There was a
police chowky near the vicinity. He never felt like lodging a
complaint for illtreatment given to Anjali by the appellants.

¶58

10.PW-3 Dattatray Ganmote was another neighbour. He
knew PW-1, the deceased Anjali and the appellants. There was a
common wall between his house and the house of the appellants.
He has deposed that, in the meeting before the marriage, it was
agreed that Anjali’s family would give one and half tola gold,
utensils and a tempo after the marriage. He has stated that the

¶59

12 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶60

Appellants were illtreating and beating Anjali. They were
demanding gold and a tempo. They used to send Anjali to PW-1’s
house. There were meetings on two to three occasions. In spite of
that, there was no change in the behaviour of the appellants. On
five occasions he had attended those meetings. He has deposed
that, he had personally seen that the appellants were beating
Anjali.

¶61

In the cross-examination, he deposed that, he never felt
like lodging complaint in respect of illtreatment given to Anjali by
the appellants. He denied other suggestions. He admitted that, he
had not stated before the police that he had seen the appellants
beating Anjali. This is an important omission.

¶62

11.PW-5 Dr. Kunal Shirsat, who was attached to Civil
Hospital, Solapur had conducted the postmortem examination on
Anjali’s dead body on 03/05/2017. He had found 14 injuries on
the dead body. The postmortem report was admitted by the
defence. It is produced on record at Exhibit 33. PW-5 has stated
that the injury Nos.9 to 14 were postmortem injuries and were

¶63

13 of 26

¶64

201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶65

caused by ant bites. The injury Nos.1 to 8 were antemortem
injuries. The injury No.1 was of course a ligature mark and
abrasion caused because of the hanging. The injury Nos.2 to 8
were in the nature of contusions and abrasions. Out of them, the
injury Nos. 2 to 7 were caused within 5 to 7 days before the death
and injury No.8 which was the abrasion on the right cheek was
caused within 24 hours. According to him, the death was caused
due to hanging.

¶66

In the cross-examination, he deposed that, injury
Nos.2, 3 and 4 could be caused because of fall from the motorcycle
while travelling, but injury Nos.5 to 7 were not so possible. The
cause of death was ‘death due to hanging’. The cause of death
certificate is produced on record at Exhibit 56. The C.A. reports did
not throw much light beyond the evidence of PW-5.

¶67

12.PW-6 Rajendra Ushire, A.P.I. had recorded the F.I.R. at
about 10:30p.m. on 03/05/2017 when PW-1 had approached him
for giving his F.I.R. PW-6 then forwarded the F.I.R. to P.S.O.
Initially, the investigation was handed over to P.S.I. Chavan. PW-6

¶68

14 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶69

was given the investigation on 05/06/2017. He had prepared a

¶70

rough map of the spot of incident. He had sent the saree for
chemical analysis. He had sought opinion of the doctor regarding
the injuries found on the dead body.

¶71

13.PW-7 Kisan Rathod, P.S.I. had registered the offence vide
C.R.No.252 of 2017. He was P.S.O. of Vijapur Naka police station.

¶72

He handed over the investigation to P.S.I. Chavan. The offence was
registered at 1.39a.m. on 04/05/2017.

¶73

14.PW-8 P.H.C. Savita Kale was the P.S.O. of Vijapur Naka
police station on 02/05/2017. She was informed about Anjali’s
death. She had registered A.D. report on the basis of that
information.

¶74

15.PW-9 Dnyaneshwar Chavan, P.S.I. was the first
investigating officer. He had arrested the accused. He had recorded
the statements of six witnesses. He forwarded the witnesses to the
Magistrate on 08/05/2017 for recording their statements U/s.164
of the Cr.p.c.

¶75

This, in short, is the evidence of the prosecution

¶76

15 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶77

witnesses.

¶78

16.In the statement U/s.313 of the Cr.p.c., the Appellant
No.1 stated that, he had not made any demand of tempo. He did
not even have driving licence. The Appellants examined Anand
Jadhav as a defence witness. He deposed that, on 02/05/2017, at
about 7.00p.m., he was near the house of the Appellants. One boy
named Fardin told him about Anjali’s suicide. This witness then
entered the house by breaking the door. He brought the dead body
on the ground and then he went away.

¶79

In the cross-examination, he stated that he had
discussed with the appellants as to how the evidence was to be
given before the Court. He had not gone to the police for giving his
statement and whatever he was deposing was disclosed by him for
the first time. He had not told about it to anybody else before.

¶80

Learned Trial Judge believed the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the appellants,
as mentioned earlier.

¶81

17.Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the

¶82

201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶83

16 of 26

¶84

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
The evidence of the prosecution witnesses is not consistent. A
question was raised that PW-1 and PW-4 had not looked after
Anjali. There is no independent corroboration to show that PW-1
and PW-4 had looked after Anjali for her upbringing. He submitted
that the evidence regarding the meeting and the demand made in
the meeting is inconsistent. There are important omissions from
the police statements and the statements recorded U/s.164 of the
Cr.p.c. of the prosecution witnesses; which amount to
contradictions in their deposition before the trial Court. He
submitted that the allegations are vague and general in nature. No
specific instances are mentioned. No specific role is attributed to
any of the appellants separately. He submitted that the deceased
Anjali was hardly 16 year old when she was married to the
Appellant No.1 and within a year thereafter she committed suicide.
The suicide was a result of her tender age. It has nothing to do
with the alleged harassment caused by the appellants. He
submitted that, since the prosecution evidence itself was lacking,
the presumptions under the Indian Evidence Act do not operate

¶85

17 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶86

against the appellants. The injuries on the dead body were at least
4 to 5 days old and they cannot be attributed directly to any of the
appellants. He submitted that, there cannot be any dispute
regarding the cause of death. There is nothing to show that the
appellants had harassed the victim on demand of dowry before her
death and, therefore, the offence U/s.304-B of the I.P.C. is not
proved. There is nothing to suggest that, any of the appellants had
abetted commission of suicide as per requirement of Section 107
r/w. 306 of the I.P.C.

¶87

18.Shri. Purwant relied on the Judgment of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Nimay Sah Versus State of
Jharkhand1. He contended that, since the allegations were vague
and general in nature, based on the ratio of this Judgment, the
appellants deserve benefit of doubt.

¶88

19.Learned APP opposed these submissions. According to
her, the evidence of all the four prosecution witnesses was
consistent. All of them have consistently deposed that there was
demand of a tempo and on that count the deceased was

¶89

1 (2020) 17 Supreme Court Cases 86

¶90

18 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶91

continuously harassed. This had occurred on many occasions. She
submitted that the victim had died within one year of marriage
and, therefore, presumption U/s.113-A and 113-B of the Indian
Evidence Act will apply. She further submitted that, there were
injuries on the person of Anjali and only the Appellants could have
explained those injuries. The burden was on them U/s.106 of the
Indian Evidence Act. She, therefore, supported the impugned
Judgment and order.

¶92

20.I have considered these submissions. PW-1 is the main
witness. This prosecution witness has given the background of the
marriage and has deposed about the meeting. In the examination
in chief he has stated that the Appellant Nos.1 to 3 demanded a
tempo, but in the cross-examination he was confronted with the
fact that, in his F.I.R., he had not referred to any demand for a
tempo made in the meeting. The F.I.R. mentions that the Appellant
No.1 was demanding a tempo and he was asking for tempo after
the marriage took place. Therefore, the prosecution has not
established beyond reasonable doubt that a tempo was demanded
in the meeting held prior to the marriage; at least through the

¶93

201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶94

19 of 26

¶95

evidence of this witness.

¶96

21.The other witness with reference to that meeting is PW-

¶97

4. He is real brother of PW-1 and uncle of the victim. He has stated
that, in the meeting, it was decided that Anjali’s family would give
one and half tola gold and bear marriage expenditure. He has also
deposed that the appellant No.3 said that the Appellant No.1 was a
tempo driver and therefore, they should buy a tempo for him. Here
again the demand involved is attributed to the Appellant No.3, in
the meeting. Significantly, this witness’s statement is recorded
belatedly on 14/05/2017. There is no explanation as to why his
statement was not recorded immediately on registration of F.I.R.
dated 03/05/2017. Therefore, this delay has weakened the
evidentiary value of this witness. In this background, the evidence
of PW-1 is important. PW-1 has referred to that demand of tempo
when Anjali was sent to his house on 12/07/2016. At that time,
Anjali had told this witness PW-1 that she was driven out of the
house for demand of tempo. Again there was no specific reference
to any of the Appellants. It was a general statement. When PW-1
and others went back to the appellants’ house, they promissed to

¶98

20 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶99

buy a tempo after a child was born to Anjali. At that time also
there was no specific allegation that any of the appellants had
demanded tempo.

¶100

22.The next reference to that demand for tempo is when
Anjali had come to PW-1’s house for sankranti festival. She stayed
there for two months. She was not taken back to her matrimonial
house. At that point, according to PW-1, the Appellant No.1 had
told him that Anjali would not be taken back unless a tempo was
given to him. This is for the first time, a specific reference to a
specific accused/appellant was made by this witness. There is no
reason to doubt this part of evidence of PW-1. Therefore, through
his evidence at least, the prosecution has successfully proved that
the Appellant No.1 had demanded a tempo from PW-1 and Anjali’s
other family members.

¶101

23.PW-2 Vishwas Gaikwad has also referred to the meeting.
The prosecution case is restricted to harassment on the ground of
non fulfillment of demand for tempo. He has deposed that the
Appellants did not treat Anjali well on the ground of demand for

¶102

201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶103

21 of 26

¶104

tempo and that they were illtreating her and had driven her out of
the house. He has not deposed that, he had personal knowledge
about these facts or that Anjali had told him about these facts.
Therefore, his evidence to that extent remains hearsay evidence
and is, therefore, not admissible. Since he had attended the
meetings, only that part of his evidence is admissible. He has
further deposed that, he had told the Appellant No.1 to properly
look after Anjali and drive PW-2’s own tempo till PW-1 could buy a
tempo for him. Here again PW-2 has made a specific reference to
the Appellant No.1 alone.

¶105

24.PW-3 was the next door neighbour of the appellants. He
has deposed that, he had personally seen that the Appellants were
beating Anjali. But in the cross-examination he admitted that he
had not stated before the police that he had seen the appellants
beating Anjali. Thus, this is an important improvement made by
him. Even otherwise, his conduct does not appear to be natural.
He had not informed Anjali’s uncles about such illtreatment.
Neither PW-1 nor PW-4 has stated that this witness PW-3 Dattatray
had told them that Anjali was illtreated by the Appellants. Thus,

¶106

22 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶107

analysis of depositions of these witnesses shows that the
prosecution has been able to prove the demand and illtreatment
only at the hands of Appellant No.1. The allegations against other
two appellants are vague, general and inconsistent. To that extent,
reliance of Shri. Purwant on the case of Nimay Sah (supra) is
correct. Therefore, I am inclined to give benefit of doubt to the
Appellant Nos.2 and 3.

¶108

25.As far as the injuries to the deceased are concerned, as
rightly submitted by learned APP, burden was on the appellants to
explain the injuries. As mentioned earlier, the prosecution evidence
is satisfactory only against the Appellant No.1. Therefore, based on
the evidence of the prosecution the burden was specifically on the
Appellant No.1 to explain how those injuries were caused. He has
not discharged that burden.

¶109

26.There is no dispute about the fact that the deceased
Anjali had committed suicide. The medical opinion mentions that
it was a case of death due to hanging. PW-4’s evidence shows that,
outer gate was latched from inside; which supports the theory of

¶110

23 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶111

suicide. In these circumstances, ingredients of Section 304-B of the
I.P.C. are attracted. Since I have reached the conclusion that the
prosecution has been able to prove the case only against the
Appellant No.1, the offence U/s.304-B of the I.P.C. also stands
proved only against the Appellant No.1. The other two appellants
deserve benefit of doubt. The conviction and sentence recorded
against the Appellant Nos.2 and 3 is required to be set aside.

¶112

27.As far as the sentencing part is concerned, the Appellant
No.1 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 10 years U/s.304-B of the I.P.C.
Shri. Purwant submitted that, at the time of incident, the Appellant
No.1 was hardly 22 years of age. He was in need of tempo which
possibly drove him in making that demand and, therefore, his poor
financial condition may be taken into consideration for reducing
the sentence from 10 years R.I. to a lesser sentence. He submitted
that the minimum sentence provided for commission of offence
punishable U/s.304-B of the I.P.C. is 7 years and sentence for that
period would meet the ends of justice. Learned APP left the issue
of sentencing to the discretion of the Court.

¶113

201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶114

24 of 26

¶115

28.I have considered these submissions. There is substance

¶116

in the submission of Shri. Purwant for reducing the sentence
imposed against the Appellant No.1. He is sentenced to suffer R.I.
for 7 years for commission of offence punishable U/s.306 of the
I.P.C.; the same sentence can be imposed on him for commission of
offence punishable U/s.304-B of the I.P.C.

¶117

29.Hence, the following order:

¶118

O R D E R

¶119

i)The Appeal is partly allowed.

¶120

ii)The Appellant No.2 Kashibai Ashok Mashalkar
and the Appellant No.3 Ashok Narayan
Mashalkar are acquitted of all the charges.

¶121

iii)The Appellant Nos.2 and 3 shall execute their
bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court as
per the provision of Section 437-A of the Cr.p.c.

¶122

iv)The conviction and sentence recorded by the
Trial Court against the Appellant No.1 Ramesh
Ashok Mashalkar for commission of offence

¶123

25 of 26

¶124

201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶125

punishable under section 498-A of the I.P.C. are
maintained.

¶126

v)The conviction and sentence recorded by the
Trial Court against the Appellant No.1 Ramesh
Ashok Mashalkar for commission of offence
punishable under section 306 of the I.P.C. are
maintained.

¶127

vi)The conviction and sentence recorded by the
Trial Court against the Appellant No.1 Ramesh
Ashok Mashalkar for commission of offence
punishable under section 323 of the I.P.C. are
maintained.

¶128

vii)The conviction recorded by the Trial Court
against the Appellant No.1 Ramesh Ashok
Mashalkar for commission of offence punishable
under section 304-B of the I.P.C. is maintained.
However, instead of R.I. for 10 years, the
Appellant No.1 is sentenced to suffer R.I. for 7
years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in

¶129

26 of 26201-apeal-246-19 (Judgment)

¶130

default of payment of fine to suffer further R.I.
for two months.

¶131

viii)All the substantive sentences imposed on the
Appellant No.1 are directed to run concurrently.

¶132

ix)The Appellant No.1 is granted set off U/s.428 of
the Cr. P. C.

¶133

x)The Appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶134

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)

Ramesh Ashok Mashalkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Ashok Mashalkar and Ors. v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Trambak Rambhau Sadgir Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sandesh Suresh Gurav Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Omkar @ Chikya Ananda Chougule Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikramsingh Gumansingh Rajput @ Vikramsingh Gumansingh Rajpurohit @ Vicky @ Vickysingh Vs State of Maharashtra

Janzeb Amir Kamal Khan @ Guddu Pathan Vs State of Maharashtra

Navnath Tukaram Behere Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.