Bombay High Court
Sanjay Shankarrao Hole vs State Of Mah,.Thr. Pso Amravati on 8 January, 2019
Author: Z.A. Haq
Bench: Z.A. Haq
1 apeal249.04
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.249/2004
Sanjay Shankarrao Hole,
aged about 28 Yrs.,
R/o Yashoda Nagar, Amravati,
Tq. and Distt. Amravati. ..Appellant.
..Vs..
State of Maharashtra,
through Police Station Officer,
Frezarpura, Amravati. ..Respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri T.U. Tathod, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Shamsi Haider, A.P.P. for the respondent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : Z.A. HAQ, J.
DATE : 8.1.2019.
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Heard.
2. Accused No.1 has filed this appeal to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge convicting him for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- (Rs. Two Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
3. The case of the prosecutions is:
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2019 05:31:48 :::
2 apeal249.04 The appellant and deceased Madhuri got married on 27 th May, 1994 and two daughters were born to Madhuri out of wedlock. After marriage, Madhuri was coerced by the appellant to bring Rs.8,000/- (Rs. Eight Thousand) from her mother for purchase of an autorickshaw. Mother of Madhuri was in government service. On insistence of Madhuri, her mother gave Rs.3,000/- (Rs. Three Thousand). The accused continued to coerce Madhuri to bring amount from her mother and on her failure, the accused ill-treated Madhuri. In August 2000, Madhuri had gone to her mother's house and informed her mother that the appellant was demanding Rs.50,000/-
(Rs. Fifty Thousand) to pay earnest money for purchasing house. Mother of Madhuri could give only Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand). As the demand of appellant was not satisfied, he continued to ill-treat Madhuri. The appellant started residing with accused No.2 - Sheetal in the same house where Madhuri was also residing and the appellant insisted that Madhuri should either bring Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand) from her mother or to reverse the tubectomy operation undertaken by her or the appellant would marry accused No.2 - Sheetal. Being fade up with continued ill-treatment, on 30th May, 2001 Madhuri poured kerosene and set herself ablaze. Madhuri was admitted in hospital, information was given to police, dying declaration was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate. Madhuri succumbed to the burn injuries on 3 rd June, 2001 before her mother could reach the hospital. Crime No.154/2001 was registered against the appellant and accused No.2 - Sheetal for offence ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2019 05:31:48 ::: 3 apeal249.04 punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, investigation was undertaken and charge-sheet was filed against both the accused before Judicial Magistrate First Class for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is triable exclusively by the Sessions Court, the matter was committed to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charges and read over and explained the charges to the accused in vernacular. The accused did not accept the guilt and claimed to be tried. After conducting the trial, the learned Sessions Judge recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that Madhuri committed suicide. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused Nos.1 and 2, in furtherance of their common intention, abetted commission of suicide by Madhuri. The learned Sessions Judge has recorded that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant / accused No.1 subjected Madhuri to cruelty since marriage till her death. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the appellant of the charge of commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, however, convicted the appellant / accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as per the impugned judgment. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused No.2 - Sheetal.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2019 05:31:48 :::
4 apeal249.04
4. The learned Advocate for the appellant has submitted that the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not sufficient to maintain the conviction of the appellant. It is submitted that the conviction of the accused is on the basis of the evidence of P.W.2 - Sou. Mala (mother of Madhuri) who is an interested witness. It is argued that the evidence of P.W.2 - Sou. Mala cannot be the basis of conviction of the appellant as it is not corroborated by any independent witness. It is pointed out that the evidence of P.W.1 - Ku. Lalita does not corroborate the evidence of P.W.2 - Sou. Mala to support the accusations regarding illegal demand by the appellant and harassment meted out to Madhuri.
5. Undisputedly, father of Madhuri died before the incident. The evidence of P.W.2 - Sou. Mala shows that Madhuri used to visit her and convey the demand made by the appellant. In the evidence of P.W.2 - Sou. Mala it has come on record that the accused No.2 - Sheetal was residing in the same house where the appellant and Madhuri were residing and that the appellant used to threaten to Madhuri that either she should bring Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand) from her mother or reverse the vasectomy operation or he would perform marriage with accused No.2 - Sheetal. P.W.1 - Ku. Lalita has corroborated the evidence of P.W.2 - Sou. Mala on the point that accused No.2 - Sheetal was residing in the same house where the appellant and Madhuri were residing. P.W.1 - Ku. Lalita has supported the case of the ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2019 05:31:48 ::: 5 apeal249.04 prosecution on the point that there used to be quarrel between the appellant and Madhuri. P.W.1 - Ku. Lalita has stated that she was residing with her sister Sugandha Sheshrao Dhotekar (P.W.4) in the neighbourhood of appellant since five years prior to the recording of her evidence in 2003. The incident is of May 2001. P.W.1 - Ku. Lalita was residing in the neighbourhood of appellant and Madhuri for considerable time and, therefore, she has to be considered as a natural witness on the point of strained relations and quarrel between the appellant and Madhuri. The appellant has not been able to bring on record anything in the cross-examination of P.W.2 - Sou Mala and P.W.1 - Ku. Lalita to doubt the veracity of their evidence.
6. Considering the evidence of P.W.2 - Sou. Mala and P.W.1 - Ku. Lalita, it has to be held that the prosecution has proved that the appellant permitted accused No.2 - Sheetal to live in the same house where he was residing with Madhuri. It being so, the evidence of P.W.2 - Sou. Mala about harassment and mental agony meted out to Madhuri and the threats given by the appellant to Madhuri to bring Rs.40,000/- (Rs. Forty Thousand) from her mother or to reverse the vasectomy operation or that he would perform marriage with accused No.2 - Sheetal cannot be disbelieved.
7. I find that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and the conviction of the appellant for the offence ::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2019 05:31:48 ::: 6 apeal249.04 punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code cannot be said to be unjustified.
At this stage, the learned Advocate for the appellant / accused has submitted that the appellant has not been involved in any other crime or offence and had been working on daily wages and earning his livelihood. It is submitted that two daughters of appellant and Madhuri were with the appellant after the death of Madhuri and the appellant has taken care of both the daughters and now they are married and residing at their matrimonial house. It is submitted that the appellant had been in jail for 4 months and 17 days. It is prayed that lenient view may be taken and the sentence may be modified.
The above submissions made on behalf of the appellant cannot be accepted. In the facts of the case, it would not be proper for this Court to modify the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge imposing sentence of two years on the appellant.
In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.
The appellant shall be given set-off for the period already undergone by him as per law.
The order regarding muddemal property shall be the same as in the impugned judgment.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2019 05:31:48 :::
7 apeal249.04 CRIMINAL APPLICATION (APPA) NO.1250/2018
8. In view of the above judgment, this application praying for suspension of sentence does not survive and is disposed accordingly.
JUDGE Tambaskar.
::: Uploaded on - 11/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 12/01/2019 05:31:48 :::