Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. The story of this unfortunate girl starts on 11-2-1982 when her marriage was solemnised with the appellant preceded by a formal betrothal ceremony on 2-8-81, After the marriage, Manju, for the first time, went to her parents' house on 22-2-82 for a very short period and returned to Pune on 26-2-C2. It is the prosecution case that on 17-3-82 the appellant had called Manju at Pearl Hotel where he introduced her to Ujvala and told her that she must act according to the dictates and orders of Ujvala, if she wanted to lead a comfortable life with her husband. In other words, the suggestion was that the appellant made it clear to his wife that Ujvala was the. real mistress of the house and Manju was there Only to obey her orders After this incident, Manju went to her parents' house on 2-4-82 and returned to Pune on 12-4-82, This was her second Visit. The third and perhaps the last visit of Manju to her parents' house was on 25-5-82 from where she returned to Pune on 3-6-82, werever to return again. The reason for her return to Pune was that her father-in-law insisted that she should return to Pune because the betrothal ceremony of Shobha (sister of the appellant) was going to be held on 13-6-82,

55. Again, the witness repeats that when Manju came down to see him off he noticed her weeping all the time. To cut a long story short, the witness came back to Beed and sent his son Pradeep to bring Manju from Pune to Beed. On reaching there he was informed that Manju and Sharad had gone on a holiday trip to Mysore, Tirupati, etc. After the return of Pradeep to Beed, Dhanraj informed the witness that Sharad and Manju had returned to Pune and therefore, he sent his son, Deepak to Pune to bring back Manju. When Manju arrived at Beed, the witness found her totally disturbed and frightened. This statement would be admissible as primary evidence. What probative value should be attached to this small matter is a different issue.

Till I could control (myself), well and good. When it becomes impossible, some other way will have to be evolved. Let us see what happens. All right.

Similarly, in her letter (Ext. 33) to this witness she gives a concealed hint "But till that day it is not certain that I will be alive".

85. Thus the feelings of death and despair which she orally expressed to the witness at Pane seem to have been fulfilled when on the morning of 12th June, 1982 she was found dead.

86. The evidence of PW 4, Hiralal Ramlal Sarda, is not that important. He merely states that in the last week of May, 1982, PW 2 had called him and told him that Manju was being ill-treated by her husband and therefore she was not prepared to go to her marital home. PW 2 also informed him about the suicidal pact affair. As the witness was in a hurry to go to Hyderabad he counseled PW 2 not to take any final decision in a hurry and that Manju should not be sent to Pune with Birdichand until his return when a decision may be taken. On return from Hyderabad he learnt that Birdichand had already taken Manju to Pune and thereafter he left for Pune. Indeed, if the matter was so grave and serious that a person like PW 4, who was a relation of the appellant rather than that of PW 2, had advised him not to make haste and take a final decision but wait until his return yet PW 2 seems to have spurned his advice and sent Manju to Pune. This shows that the matter was not really of such great importance or urgency as to take the drastic step of making a blunt refusal to Birdichand about Manju's not going to Pune. This also shows that the story of suicidal pact and other things had been introduced in order to give a colour or orientation to the prosecution story.

185. After Manju passed her B. Sc. degree examination in 1990 her incharge with tile appellant was settled by a formal betrothal ceremony which took place in June 1981. The marriage of the appellant and Manju was performed at the expense of P. W. 2 at Beed on 11-2-4982. The appellant and Manju left for Pune on 12-2-1982 after the marriage. Subsequently, P. W. 2 sent his elder son Deepak for fetching Manju from the appellant's house at Pune and they accordingly came back to Beed on 22-2-1982. The appellant went to Beed four or five days later and took Manju back to Pune on the next day after pleading his inability to stay in P. W. 2's house for some more days. This was Manju's first visit to bet parents' house after her marriage with the appellant She is said to have been very happy dining that visit. Thereafter Manju came to her parents' house along with her maternal uncle Dhanraj Rathi (P. W. 22) on or about 2-4-1982. It is the case of the prosecution that during that visit Manju was uneasy and had generally complained against the appellant to P. Ws. 3 and 6. P. W. 2 planned to keep Manju in his house for about three weeks on that occasion. But news' of the death of the appellant's grandfather was received in P. W. 2's house in Beed and, therefore, P. Ws. 2 and 20 and Manju went to Pune for condolences on 11-4-1982. After meeting the appellant's father and others at Pune, P. Ws. 2 and 20 returned to Beed leaving Manju in the appellant's house in Pune. That was the second visit of Manju to her parents' house after marriage with the appellant. P. Ws. 2 and 20 came to Pune again on or about 13-5-1982. After staying for some time as usual in the house of P. W. 22, P. Ws. 2 and 20 visited the house of Birdhichand on that occasion. It is the case of the prosecution that P.Ws. 2 and 20 found Manju disturbed and uneasy and that they, therefore, took her to the house of P. W. 22 with the permission of Birdhishand. It is also the case of the prosecution that on reaching P. W. 22's house Manju completely broke down and started weeping in the arms of P. W. 20. P. Ws. 2 and 20 returned to Beed from Pune and sent their second son Pardeep four or five days later to fetch Manju, who had, how-ever, by then gone with the appellant to Tirupati in Andhra Pradesh. After learning that the appellant and Manju had returned to Pune, P. W. 2 sent his son Deepak to fetch Manju to Beed. Accordingly Deepak brought Manju to Beed accompanied by the third accused's daughter Kavita on 25-5-1982. This was Manju's third and last visit to her parents' house after her marriage with the appellant. It is the case of the prosecution that Manju was totally disturbed and frightened during that visit and that she complained to her mother P. W. 20 against the appellant and she in turn conveyed to P. W. 2 what she heard from Manju. Birdhichand went to Beed on 2-6-1982 without any prior intimation for taking Manju to. Pune on the ground that Manju's pretence in his family house at Pune was necessary for the betrothal ceremony of his daughter Shobha fixed for 13-6-1C32 as well as for her marriage fixed for 30-6-1982. It is the case of the prosecution that when Manju came to know that her father-in-law Birdhichand had come for taking her to Pune she wept and expressed her unwillingness to go to Pune and that, however, on the assurance of Birdhichand that he would see to it that nothing happened to the life of Manju, P. W. 2 permitted Manju to go to Pune along with Birdhichand and she accordingly went to Pune on 3-6-1982 along with Kavita and Birdhichand.