Anusaya Wd/O Rajabhau Morale vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Pso Aroli Dist Nagpur and 2 Other

¶1

2025:BHC-NAG:2462

¶2

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION (WP) NO. 797 OF 2024

¶6

Anusaya wd/o Rajabhau Morale, Aged: 52 years, Occu: Housewife, R/o 14/3 Nurses Quarter, Medical Premises, Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ...PETITIONER

¶7

// V E R S U S //

¶8

State of Maharashtra, Through its PSO Aroli, Dist. Nagpur

¶9

Achyut s/o Gokulrao Kirdant, Aged: 60 years, Occ: Agriculturist, R/o Yashwantrao Chavan Square Mauli Nagar, Ambejogai, Dist. Beed.

¶10

Asmita w/o. Achyit Kirdant, Aged : 46 years, Occ. Household, R/o Yashwantrao Chavan Square, Mauli Nagar, Ambejogai, Dist. Beed. ... RESPONDENTS

¶11

Mr K. S. Agrawal, Adv. h/f. Mr Chintan Tamhane, Advocate for the petitioner Mr N. R. Rode, APP for the respondent No. 1/State. Mr Shakil Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 and 3

¶12

CORAM : A NIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : MARCH 04, 2025.

¶13

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶14

2

¶15

O R A L J U D G M E N T :

¶16

Heard.

¶17

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up

¶18

for final disposal with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶19

The order below Exh. 48 dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-15 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, rejecting the application moved by the petitioner for further investigation as regards the conversation took place between the accused No. 3 and the mother of the deceased, is under challenge before this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that, telephonic conversation referred hereinabove was taken place between the accused No. 3 and the mother of the deceased.

¶20

The brief facts of the present case are as under:

¶21

The mother of the deceased, who was the wife of

¶22

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶23

3

¶24

the accused No.1 and daughter-in-law of accused Nos. 2 and 3, lodged a report to the Police Station Aroli, Nagpur District for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’). The investigating officer, after conducting the investigation, filed a charge-sheet on 26.03.2022.

¶25

Thereafter, the informant filed an application

¶26

before the trial Court for direction to make the further investigation. The application was moved under Section 173 (8) read with Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under Section 193 (9) read with Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶27

In the application, she states that she is the mother

¶28

of the deceased Priyanka Kirdant and she possesses audio recording between herself and the accused No. 3 i.e. mother-inlaw of deceased. She further states that said audio recording

¶29

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶30

4

¶31

contains incriminating material insofar as allegations leveled against the accused persons in relation to the pressure created by them on the deceased for abortion is concerned.

¶32

This conversation is dated 28.12.2020 forcing the informant to ask the deceased to carry out abortion as the deceased conceived a child from accused No.1 even before marriage. The informant further stated that the said recording was initially handed over to the Police Sub-Inspector Shri Chabukswar in a pen-drive after the registration of FIR. It is stated that the same was not considered and it is not made part of the charge-sheet, which constrained the informant to file such application.

¶33

The accused Nos.2 and 3 filed the reply opposing

¶34

the said application.

¶35

Thereafter, the learned Sessions Judge, on hearing the parties, passed the impugned order dated 26.09.2024

¶36

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶37

5

¶38

rejecting the application of the petitioner. The learned Sessions

¶39

Judge recorded the reasons for rejection in Para 21 onwards, which reads thus:

¶40

“21. However in the present case in hand, it has to be seen whether there are circumstances warrant further investigation. According to the applicant audio conversation is vital piece of evidence therefore, it is required to be brought on record. However, after perusal of FIR and statements of witnesses on record there is no mention of alleged conversation between accused no.3 and applicant herself. By way of further investigation in respect of audio recording it is sought to be established that accused no.3 pressurized informant for abortion of deceased Priyanka. However, statement of witness Rekha Banduji Aswale who is colleague working in the office of deceased Priyanka, she had stated that deceased Priyanka was having problem in respect of kidney therefore, abortion was done in Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur.”

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶42

the conversation recorded is a vital part of the evidence, which supports the case of the prosecution as regards the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased and further to establish the fact that she was forced to carry out abortion.

¶43

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶44

6

¶45

It is submitted that if further investigation is not

¶46

made it would amount to denial of fair trial. He further submits that further investigation even after filing of charge-sheet is permissible.

¶47

On the other hand, while opposing the writ petition Shri S.V.Deshmukh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that no purpose would be served if such investigation is directed to be carried out. He submits that such direction would be futile and also it will be unfair to issue such directions as the trial is a hanging sword on the head of the accused persons and if such directions are issued the trial will be prolonged.

¶48

He further submits that such further investigation

¶49

is not warranted for the reasons, as recorded by the learned Sessions Court. He therefore prays for rejection of the present petition.

¶50

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶51

7

¶52

In the light of the rival submissions made by the

¶53

counsel for respective parties, I have perused the record and the impugned order.

¶54

The petitioner has filed transcript of the said audio

¶55

clip as regards to which the further investigation is sought. After going through the transcript and conversation between the mother of the deceased and accused No. 2 there is no doubt

¶56

that the accused No.2 appears to have forced the mother of the deceased to ask the deceased to carry out abortion.

¶57

The conversation is lengthy, however relevant

¶58

portion of the same which prima facie supports the case of the prosecution, is reproduced hereunder:

¶59

“15- vuql;k% ukgh vkrk dk; dj.kkj vkgs vki.k rjh \ 16- vfLerk% dk; dj.kkj vkgsr Eg.kts] rs abortion dsY;k f’kok;] ckG Bsmu gs vlra; \

¶60

26- vfLerk% vkEgh fopkjkauh dk;] ex eh ?kVLiksVp lkaxsy c?kk HkS;k yk eh Dyhvj lkaxsy] c?kk ex rqepa rqEgh dk; vkgs dk; ukgh rs-

¶61

27- vuql;k% ukgh vkgs R;kauh dk; B:u dsya;] iq<s R;kauk dk; djk;p vkgs dk; ukgh vkrk dk; ekfgrh

¶62

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶63

8

¶64

28- vfLerk% dk; djk;pa Eg.kts] R;kauk vki.k ts lkaxq rs djkoa ykxsy] R;kauh dk; djk;pa Eg.kts] R;kauh ‘ks.k [kkYya Eg.kqu dk; vki.k [kk;pa dk \

¶65

32- vfLerk% ukgh eh Vksdkph Hkqfedk ?ksÅ ‘kdrs c?kk] rqEgh dkgh djr ulyk rjh eh Vksdkph Hkqfedk ?ksÅ ‘kdrs-

¶66

34- vfLerk% fryk ckG goa vlsy rj ckG ?ksmup jkghy rh u (inaudible) brds vlys gs dk; 40&50 o”kkZps >kys dk fd R;kauk uarj ysd: Eg.kts gks.kkj ukgh] dj.kkj ukgh \ lektkr mn;k rksaM dk; nk[ko.kkj] vkf.k nksu efgU;kr vk.k[kh dkgh d: ‘kd.kkj ukgh] nksu efgU;kr lektkr iksjxh mHkh dsyh rj yksd ‘ks.k dks.kkP;k rksaMkr ?kkyrhy] rqeP;k ?kkyrhy fd vkeP;k ?kkyrhy dks.kkP;k ?kkyrhy-

¶67

37- vuql;k % gks u] c?kq lkaxrs FkksM;k osGkuh Qksu djrs eh] tjk ‘kkar gksrs rks oj-

¶68

38- vfLerk % c?kq ukgh] fnolufnol Vkbe fu?kwu xsY;koj mi;ksx ukgh R;kpk ,d fnolkauh fnolufnol fu?kwu xsY;kuh rs] vkrya ckG eksBa gksr fd ygku gksra] rqEgh tUe fnyk vkgs nksu ysdjkauk eh fg tUe fnyk vkgs nksu ysdjkauk] eh tjh R;k profession e/;s ulyh rjh FkksM Qkj rj dkgh rjh dGr vlsy uk rqEgh rj R;krY;kap vkgs-

¶69

44- vfLerk% rs dk; vkgs rs abortion djk;yk lkaxk fryk] iq<pk dk; izkCyse ;srks rs c?kq iq< P;k iq<s dk; vkgs dk; ukgh rs-”

¶70

Moving further, the reasons recorded by the

¶71

learned Sessions Judge for rejection is that there is no mention

¶72

about such audio recording or conversation in the FIR and in

¶73

the supplementary statements.

¶74

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶75

9

¶76

It is a settled law that FIR is not an encyclopedia disclosing all facts and details relating to the entire prosecution case or in other words, it is not meant to be a detailed document containing a chronicle of all intricate and minute details.

¶77

The learned Sessions Judge further committed an

¶78

error in recording that said conversation is not between deceased Priyanka and accused No.3 and therefore, the same is not relevant for the purpose of charge punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC. In the FIR, there is a categorical statement that when deceased Priyanka had been to her in-laws house at Ambejogai, the in-laws of the deceased forced her to resign from the service and give money to them. There is also a mention that they forced her to carry out abortion. It is specifically alleged that they ill-treated her mentally.

¶79

Thus, as far as the allegation that the accused forced

¶80

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶81

10

¶82

the mother of the deceased to ask the deceased to carry out abortion is concerned, the same find place in the FIR. Hence, the conversation, according to the petitioner, is a vital piece of evidence to establish the said fact. Here, it cannot be said that the said piece of evidence is not relevant. For fair trial the learned Sessions Judge ought to have permitted further investigation.

¶83

As far as the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Court that such conversation is not in proximity of the date on which the deceased committed suicide, therefore it is not relevant for the purpose of offence under Section 306 of the IPC is concerned, I do not find any error committed in recording such finding. However, for proving the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC it is relevant. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the application for further investigation needs to be allowed.

¶84

13.WP.797.2024 judge.odt

¶85

11

¶86

Accordingly, I pass the following the order:

¶87

i] The writ petition is allowed. ii] The impugned order dated 26.09.2024 passed by the learned District Judge-15 and Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur is hereby quashed and set aside and thereby the application Exh.48 for further investigation is allowed.

¶88

iii] On completion of such investigation and if any supplementary charge-sheet is filed, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial.

¶89

iv] Needless to mention that the observations made by this Court are prima facie and the learned Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by the same.

¶90

The criminal writ petition stands disposed of in the

¶91

above terms .

¶92

Rule is made absolute accordingly.

¶93

( ANIL S. KILOR, J. )