SAHEBRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE accused appellants Sahebrao (A-1) and Bhausaheb (A-2) were tried along with their mother Shanti Bai (A-3) for committing offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). THE judgment dated 06-06-1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad found A-1 and A-2 guilty under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 306 IPC. No separate sentence was passed under Section 498-A, IPC. A-3 was acquitted. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused appellants filed an appeal before Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. THE High Court by its order dated 31-01-2005 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence passed by the trial Court. That is how the appellants are before us in this appeal. THE relevant facts deduced from the evidence are that the marriage of accused- appellant A-2, resident of Village Babulkheda, and deceased-Sangita, daughter of the complainant-Ramrao Laxman Darekar (PW-1), took place on 13-05-1990 at Village Pathri. THE distance between Village Pathri and Babulkheda was 15 Kms. Just after the marriage, A-2 insisted for a tape recorder. PW-1 persuaded that the tape recorder would be given to him in due course of time. Three days after the marriage, the elder son of PW-1, Sudam (PW-3) along with his maternal uncle, Karbhari Vithal Jadavh (PW-4) went to village Babulkheda to take the deceased back to Village Pathri. On return, PW-3 told his father PW-1 that elder brother of A- 2, accused appellant Sahebrao (A-1) was demanding additional dowry amount of Rs. 10, 000/- as the dowry paid at the time of marriage was not as per their status and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. THE deceased stayed with her father for 5-6 days and thereafter, Ambadas- brother of A-2, took her to Village Babulkheda. Ambadas on return told PW-1 that A-1 was demanding Rs.10,000/- and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. About 2-3 days later, PW-1 went to his daughter's matrimonial home. She told him that A-1 and A-2 were troubling her for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a tape recorder. PW-1 though expressed his inability to pay the amount, sent PW-3 to Aurangabad for purchasing the tape recorder. After 5-6 days, PW-3 and PW-4 went to the matrimonial home of Sangita, gave the tape recorder to the accused persons and took her to her parent's place at Village Pathari. After a week, Mansub- younger brother of A-2, came to the house of PW-1 to take her back to Village Babulkheda and informed him that A-1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the deceased would not accompany him unless the amount is given. He also informed PW-1 that A-1 would get angry if the amount was not paid. PW-1 somehow managed to send the deceased to her matrimonial home along with Mansub. In the month of 'Jaistha', when PW-1 went to see his daughter, accused persons started questioning him as to why he had not paid the amount and asked him to take his daughter back. THE deceased was taken back by PW-1 and she stayed at her maiden home for a month. Mansub, once again, came to take her back to the matrimonial home. This time also, Mansub, demanded the additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. In September 1990 the deceased came back to her father's place and on reaching there she started weeping loudly and told PW-1 and her mother that she was beaten by the accused persons and pointed out the marks of beating on her back and requested PW-1 not to send her back to Village Babulkheda. However, in the hope that situation would improve, PW-1 left his reluctant daughter to the matrimonial home on 06-09-1990. That time also A-2 told him that since the amount was not given PW-1 should take back his daughter. While returning back to his village on 07-09-1990, the deceased daughter met him on the way and told him that it would be very difficult for her to stay and also that he might not see her again.

(2.) ON 08-09-1990, the cousin brother of A-2 informed PW-1 that his daughter was ill. PW-1 along with others, went to the house of the accused persons at about 1.00 P.M. There he saw his daughter dead and no one from the family of her in-laws was present in the house. ON receipt of the information of the incident, the police registered a case of accidental death. 3. The police made inquiry from PW-1 but he told them that his mental condition is not good and that he would lodge the complaint afterwards. PW-1 lodged the complaint against the accused- appellants on 09-09-1990 at 7.30 P.M., giving the detailed narration of facts. Dr. Milind Kulkarni, who conducted post-mortem over the dead body of the deceased, opined that the cause of death was "cardio respiratory failure due to Endosalphan poisoning". Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR) is fatal to the case of prosecution. PW-1 came to know about the death at about 1.00 P.M. on 08-09-1990, yet the complaint was made on 09-09-1990 at 7.30 P.M. It indicates false implication of the accused-appellants. The settled principle of law of this Court is that delay in filing FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case and discard it. The delay in lodging the FIR would put the Court on its guard to search if any plausible explanation has been offered and if offered whether it is satisfactory.

(3.) WE are not providing an exhausting catalogue of instances which could cause delay in lodging the FIR. Our effort is to try to point out that the stale demand made in the criminal courts to treat the FIR vitiated merely on the ground of delay in its lodgment cannot be approved as a legal corollary. In any case, where there is delay in making the FIR the court is to look at the cause for it and if such causes are not attributable to any effort to concoct a version no consequence shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the FIR. [Vide Zahoor v. State of U.P.; Tara Singh v. State of Punjab, Jamna v. State of U.P.. In Tara Singh, the Court made the following observations: