Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The status and role of the five witnesses examined by prosecution, and the sum and substance of their evidence can be summarized as under :

PW1 Yogesh acted as pancha to spot panchanama Exhibit 14.
PW2 Shravan, father, who is examined at Exhibit 15, deposed that his daughter was married to Ganesh Soparkar and she went to cohabit with husband and in-laws at Varangaon. During first visit paid by his daughter after 4-5 months of marriage, she reported that she was treated properly. He further deposed that during her second visit, which was paid after 4-6 months after her first visit, she disclosed that her father-in-law and mother- in-law ill-treated her. Father-in-law beat her and he also had an evil eye on her. Six months before, he received message about her burns and therefore, they all went to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon where, he claims that, she disclosed that under tension due to mother-in-law and father-in-law, she poured kerosene and set herself on fire.
CriAppeal-615-2005 PW3 Mother Tarabai also deposed that after marriage, their daughter used to visit their house on occasions of festivals and she disclosed that both accused used to ill-treat her. That, she was not provided proper food, she was beaten and scolded on trifle reasons. She came for delivery and later on returned to her matrimonial house. The incident took place 4-5 months prior and they received phone call and so they visited Civil Hospital. There, on being asked as to what happened, witness claims that, her daughter replied that accused prevented her from accepting telephone calls received from them and also disclosed that father-in-law had evil eye on her and hence, due to tension, she committed suicide.

CriAppeal-615-2005

12. In support of charge of Section 498-A IPC, evidence of parents i.e. PW2 and PW3 is relevant. Learned counsel for the appellant, though submitted that there is no independent evidence, in matters of such nature, obviously there is evidence of family members of married woman. PW2 father, whose evidence is already discussed above, is regarding marriage of his daughter and she going to cohabit with husband and in-laws. It has come in his evidence that during first visit, which was paid by her after 4-5 months of marriage, on their query, deceased informed that she was being properly treated. His evidence further shows that second visit was paid by his daughter 4-6 months after her first visit. Therefore, second visit has to be somewhere after 10 months of marriage. This time, he alleges that, she disclosed that mother-in-law and father-in-law ill-treated her and father-in-law used to beat her. As pointed out, what was the form of ill-treatment by mother-in-law has not been stated by father. However, there are specific allegations that father-in-law used to beat her. Second allegation against preset appellant father-in-law is that, he had an evil eye on deceased. However, it is pertinent to note that evidence of PW3 mother is absolutely silent about deceased, during her second visit, reporting that father-in-law had evil eye on her.

CriAppeal-615-2005

13. PW3 mother also in her evidence speaks of visits of their daughter on festivals and disclosing about ill-treatment. Again, her evidence is distinct than that of her husband i.e. PW2 as, according to her, their daughter disclosed that accused persons did not provide proper food and used to beat her and scold her on trifle counts. To this extent, evidence of PW1 is silent. In para 2 of the evidence of PW3, she stated that after burns, deceased told that she was prevented from talking on phone and she also disclosed that father-in- law had evil eye on her and because of tension of both accused, she incinerated herself.