Dismissed

Nandabai Shyam Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Mar 2026APEAL/492/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Informant's criminal appeal against acquittal dismissed (Bombay HC Aurangabad Bench, Criminal Appeal No.492 of 2025, decided 09/03/2026, judgment per Sandipkumar C. More, J.; Coram with Abasaheb D. Shinde, J.). Acquittal by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.24 of 2018 under Sections 304B, 306, 498A, 323, 506 read with Section 34 IPC upheld: witness evidence of ill-treatm

What the court decided

AI extract

Nandabai Shyam Rathod Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-AUG:10519-DB

¶2

1 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.492 OF 2025

¶5

Nandabai w/o Shyam Ratod,

¶6

Age : 50 years, Occu.: Household, R/o.: Nehru Nagar, Tanda, Post, Harwadi, Tq. Renapur, District : Latur

¶7

…. APPELLANT (Original Informant)

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Inspector, Bhada Police Station, Tq. Ausa, District : Latur

¶10

Parmeshwar s/o Subhash Chavan, Age : 32 years, Occu.: Labour & Agri.,

¶11

Tayabai w/o Subhash Chavan, Age : 55 years Occu.: Labour and Agri.,

¶12

Respondent Nos.2 & 3 R/o.: Devtala, Taluka Ausa, District : Latur …. RESPONDENTS (Resp. No.2 & 3 Orig. Accused)

¶13

…. Mr. S. P. Tiwari h/f Mr. Shantilal J. Gaike, Advocate for the Appellant

¶14

Mr. P. S. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1-State

¶15

2 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

¶16

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE , JJ.

¶17

DATED : 09/03/2026.

¶18

JUDGMENT : ( PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )

¶19

The appellant–informant has challenged the acquittal of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were the accused in Sessions Case No.24 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 304B, 306, 498A, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Judge”) by judgment and order dated 08.01.2025 in the said case.

¶20

According to the prosecution, the informant–appellant lodged a complaint on 03.08.2017 at Bhada Police Station stating that her daughter, Bhagyashree, got married with respondent No.2–accused on 23.05.2013. At that time dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to the accused. Though Bhagyashree gave birth to two sons, namely Prathamesh and Yash, the respondents, along with other persons from village Devtala, started harassing her by demanding Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing a tractor. They used to beat her. When Bhagyashree informed the informant about the said harassment, the informant expressed her inability to fulfill the

¶21

3 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

¶22

demand. Thereafter, on 17.11.2016 at about 9:30 a.m., the respondents–accused forcibly administered a poisonous substance to Bhagyashree on account of her failure to bring Rs.2,00,000/-. Thereafter, the informant’s father took Bhagyashree to Government Hospital, Ausa; however, on the same day at about 10:50 a.m., she died during treatment. Accordingly, the report was lodged for the aforesaid offences.

¶23

On completion of investigation, the respondents – accused were charge-sheeted, but the learned trial judge, after conducting the trial, acquitted all the respondents – accused from the aforesaid offence.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the appellant – informant at the admission stage and also perused the impugned judgment.

¶25

The learned counsel for the appellant–informant vehemently argued that the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence on record and has ignored the vital evidence of the son of the deceased, who had witnessed the act of the respondents–accused of allegedly administering poison to Bhagyashree.

¶26

4 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

¶27

On going through the impugned judgment on record, it is evident that the informant has alleged that the respondents– accused, by assaulting Bhagyashree, forcibly administered a poisonous substance to her and therefore, she died due to poisoning. Admittedly, it is a case of organophosphorus poisoning as per the evidence of the Medical Officer. However, the evidence of the witnesses on the aspect of ill-treatment of the deceased does not appear reliable and trustworthy in light of the fact that A.D. Report No.34 of 2016 was registered after the death of Bhagyashree and during the inquiry of the same, the informant and other witnesses had stated that Bhagyashree was short-tempered and was suffering from typhoid and that in a state of anger she herself consumed poisonous material. Moreover, the evidence of the informant and other witnesses is full of material contradictions and omissions. Furthermore, the FIR was lodged after a delay of eight months, which is absolutely fatal to the prosecution case.

¶28

Further, it appears that though the son of Bhagyashree, i.e., Prathamesh (PW-6), had deposed against the respondents–accused and stated that they first beat Bhagyashree and then administered poison to her, but no external injuries were found on the person of Bhagyashree. Considering the fact that he was residing with his

¶29

5 Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

¶30

grandmother, the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out, particularly as he was merely three years old at the relevant time. Considering all these aspects, it is evident that the learned Trial Judge has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly acquitted the respondents–accused. In view of the same, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.

¶31

( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )

¶32

VS Maind/-

Nandabai Shyam Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Nandabai Shyam Rathod v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases