STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ASHOK CHOTELAL SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, by the State of Maharasthra, is directed against the common judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court, in Confirmation Case No. 4 of 1986 and Criminal Appeal No. 288 of 1986. The High Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Session for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 585 of 1984 convicting the respondent under Section 498A, I.P.C. for subjecting his wife Vibha to cruelty and under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing her death.

(2.) The respondent married Vibha on 29-5-1981. Vibha was the daughter of Chandrakant Shukla, an uneducated person, who started his life as a salesman, but eventually switched over to business and in due course of time became an owner of 15 flour mills and 3 buildings. He had four daughters including Vibha. Vibha had studied up to first year B.Sc. Vibhas family was staying at Jogeshwari. At the time of his marriage the respondent was staying with his father Chotelal who was then an Assistant Commissioner of Police in Bombay. They were staying in a Government flat at Dadar. The respondent was then serving in a local concern. He had obtained some qualification in engineering from a foreign private institution. It was the prosecution case that the proposal had come from the respondents side for the hand of Vibha and during further negotiations respondents father had demanded dowry of Rs. 1,50,000. Ultimately, Chandrakant had agreed to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as dowry inclusive of jewellery, utensils and clothes. After their marriage the respondent and Vibha had started staying in a flat at Mulund which belonged to the respondents father. Vibhas father Chandrakant was required to pay money for utensils, gas connection and other articles required for setting up respondents home at Mulund. It was also the prosecution case that on the very first visit by the parents of Vibha to the respondents fathers flat at Dadar, the respondents father had insulted Vibhas mother Pushpa. He considered it below his dignity and status to talk to the parents of Vibha as they were uneducated. The prosecution case further was that in September or October, 1981 the respondent decided to give up the job and set up a plastic factory of his down. He wanted Vibhas father to give money for that purpose. Vibhas father paid Rs. 20,000/- only. As he was required to obtain a loan from a bank he had asked Vibhas father to be a guarantor and also obtained his signatures on some loan papers. The respondent, however, did not invite him on the opening day of the factory; but, when he went on his own to the factory after about 10 days the respondent had told him that he needed more money to run his factory. Thereupon he had paid Rs. 30,000 to the respondent. That was in November or December, 1981.

(3.) Vibha was by that time pregnant so she went to her parents house at Jogeshwari in January, 1982 for delivery. She gave birth to a female child on 27-3-1982. She had to undergo a Caesarean operation. Even though the respondent and his parents were informed about the operation and birth of the female child none of them visited the hospital at the time of the operation. Even thereafter the parents of the respondent did not visit the hospital to inquire about the health of Vibha or to see the female child. None of them remained present on 7th April, 1982 the day on which her naming ceremony was performed. The female child was named Rachna. After about four or five days Rachna became ill and was admitted in a hospital for about 15 days. Only on the next day the respondent had gone to the hospital but his parents had not visited the hospital at all. In May, 1982 the respondent had visited Vibhas fathers house at Jogeshwari and demanded Rs. 5,000 as that amount was needed by him, Vibhas father had paid that amount. On the same day Vibha along with her daughter Rachna and sister Sushma had gone to Vibhas in-laws house at Dadar. Vibha was allowed to stay but the respondent had told Sushma to take Rachna back and when Sushma had shown her inability to take the child back the respondent had told her to place the child under tyres of a car. On Vibhas request not to quarrel Sushma had gone back with the child who was brought up thereafter by the parents of Vibha.