Bombay High Court
Ganesh Manikrao Watkar vs State Of Mah.Thr.Pso Wardha on 9 March, 2018
Author: V. M. Deshpande
Bench: V. M. Deshpande
1 apeal550.04.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.550/2004
Ganesh s/o Manikrao Watkar,
aged 38 years, Occ. Business,
resident of Bopapur (Dighi),
Tahsil, Deoli, Dist. Wardha. .....APPELLANT
...V E R S U S...
State of Maharashtra through
thr. PSO Deoli, Tq. Deoli, Dist. Wardha ...RESPONDENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Y. Ganu, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. A. Madiwale, A.P.P. for respondent-State.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:- V. M. DESHPANDE, J.
DATED :- 09.03.2018
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By the present appeal, the appellant is challenging his conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code as imposed upon him by learned 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.101/2001. By the impugned judgment, the appellant is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and also to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months.
::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 01:44:19 :::
2 apeal550.04.odt
2. I have heard Mr. Yashodhan Ganu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Madiwale, learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also gone through the record and proceedings.
3. The appellant was charged by the learned Court below for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. By the impugned judgment, the learned Judge of the Court below acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. No appeal is preferred against the said acquittal by the State.
4. Marriage of the appellant with the deceased Jyoti was performed on 31.05.1997. The deceased has expired on 31.03.2001 due to 100% burn injuries. Before her death, the dying declaration of Jyoti was recorded. It is at Exh.-20. Perusal of the said dying declaration shows that the deceased received burn injuries accidentally. Not only that, she has stated in her dying declaration that her husband-appellant extinguished the fire. She has also stated that there was no ill treatment to her either from the appellant or from any of his family members. ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 01:44:19 :::
3 apeal550.04.odt
5. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant, the material witnesses are parents of the deceased Jyoti namely; Govindrao Chaudhari (PW1), mother of the deceased Chabutai Chaudhari (PW4) and her sister Wanmala Chaudhari (PW2). The evidence of parents of the deceased show that on 24.02.2001, the appellant along with the deceased had been to their house and at that time, the appellant was asking the deceased in loud voice "Tuzya Wadilana Sang" As per the claim of the parents, it was revealed by Jyoti that the appellant had been to their house for demanding money. It is also stated in their evidence that dowry amount of Rs.20,000/- was less, he wants more, to the extent of Rs.30,000/-. According to the evidence, thereafter the appellant slept in their house only and thereafter Govindrao went for Bhajan. When he returned, he noticed absence of the appellant. It was disclosed that the appellant has left for his own house at Deoli.
It is further the evidence of Govindrao (PW1) that on the next day, he went to the house of appellant. That time, he asked him to send the deceased to his house and therefore his wife Chabutai brought their daughter to the house of the appellant. On 31.03.2001, he received the information about the burning. ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 01:44:19 :::
4 apeal550.04.odt
6. From the evidence of the parents, it is crystal clear that, after marriage till 24.02.2001, there was no demand whatsoever by the appellant. Further, even according to Govindrao, on the next day, when he reached to the house of the appellant, that time, the appellant asked Govindrao to send his wife to his house. It is not the claim of Govindrao that that time the appellant again demanded money and/or stated that unless and until amount is paid, Jyoti should not be sent to his house.
7. Contrary to the evidence of parents, Wanmala (PW2), the younger sister of the deceased claims that she resided in the house of appellant at Diwali as she was taking learning Sewing. It is her claim that during the period of her stay, she noticed that the appellant, under the influence of liquor used to beat Jyoti on account of preparation of meals and on account of demanding money. Had the deceased been subjected to ill treatment, this fact would have definitely reflected in the evidence of the parents of Jyoti. No such assertion of beating is being made by the parents. Further, even it is not the claim of the parents that at any point of time, Wanmala was residing with the appellant at Deoli. That creates doubt about the very presence of Wanmala in the ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 01:44:19 ::: 5 apeal550.04.odt house of appellant at Deoli.
8. Cruelty for the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is defined. For the purpose of offence, the present case would fall within the ambit of clause (b) of explanation of Section 498-A. In the present case, there is no reliable evidence to prove that there was ill treatment to the deceased at the hands of the appellant to meet any unlawful demand. As seen, the parents are blissfully silent in their evidence about any type of ill treatment by the appellant. The evidence of sister is found to be unreliable. Had the appellant really been insisting for any amount, he would not have stated to his father-in-law that his wife should be sent to the house without claiming any amount, as it could be seen from the evidence of father-in-law of the appellant.
9. Further, the appellant has examined one Dadarao Mahajan (DW1) as defence witness. He is the immediate neighbour of appellant at Deoli. His evidence shows that the relations of the appellant with the deceased are very cordial and he had not seen any quarrel in between the couple. Not only that, in the cross-examination, he has replied that he has seen the ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 01:44:19 ::: 6 apeal550.04.odt appellant Ganesh extinguishing the fire of Jyoti. That corroborates the recitals made in the Dying Declaration (Exh.-20). In my view, the learned Judge of the Court below ought to have given due weightage to his testimony.
10. The cumulative effect of the reappreciation of the prosecution case leads me to pass the following order.
ORDER
(i) Criminal Appeal No. 550/2004 is allowed.
(ii) Judgment and order dated 19.08.2004 passed by 1st Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Sessions Trial No.101/2001 thereby convicting the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside.
(iii) Appellant-Ganesh Manikrao Watkar is hereby acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
JUDGE kahale ::: Uploaded on - 13/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 14/03/2018 01:44:19 :::