SHALIGRAM RAMKRSISHNA PATIL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As both these appeals arise out of a judgment and order dated 17/12/1992 passed in Criminal Case No. 175 of 1990 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Surat (for brevity, 'the learned trial Judge'), they are being decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

(2.) Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1993 has been preferred by the appellant original accused No. 1 Shaligram Ramkrishna Patil under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, 'the Code') challenging the aforesaid judgment and order by which the learned trial Judge has convicted him and sentenced to undergo 07 years' rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code (for brevity 'the IPC') and 01 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.250/ and in default of payment of fine, further 5 days' simple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC.

(3.) Facts of the prosecution case are that marriage of daughter of complainant Dhondu Bhavji Chaudhary, the father of deceased Sunanda had solemnized in the year 1984 with one Satishbhai S/o. Shaligram Ramkrishna Patil. Out of the said wedlock, they have two children. It was the case of the prosecution that while betrothal, aforesaid Shaligram Ramkrishna Patil, the father of the husband of the deceased and appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 90 of 1993 original accused No. 1, who is a retired policeman, had said the complainant that he did not want any Mool (dowry) and he only wanted his daughter since he had no daughter, however, after betrothal and marriage, the accused started demanding mool. In fact, as per the custom, at the time of marriage, the complainant had given gold ring, watch, radio, fan and clothes etc. but afterwards the appellant original accused No. 1 had started demanding mool. That, for the same, they used to harass and taunt the deceased. Due to such unbearable harassment, the deceased was not even ready to return to her matrimonial house when she had gone to her parental house. Even, her husband and the fatherinlaw, by various letters, had asked her for bringing mool. That, by letter dated 01/06/1989 which was required to be treated as telegram, the appellant original accused No. 1 had conveyed the complainant that time being, put all the things aside and send the deceased urgently as the operation of ear of Kiran had been fixed and hence, the complainant had arranged for the things worth Rs.11,000/ and further assured to give colour television and the cupboard later, and requested him to bring the deceased and accordingly, the brothersinlaw of the deceased and others brought the deceased back with them. At that time, the complainant had asked the deceased to convey whether the disturbance had settled or not. However, since her returning to her matrimonial home, there was no communication from the deceased and only on 16/07/1989 the complainant received a message about the death of the deceased due to burning. The complainant did not believe such story and apprehended that as the colour television and the cupboard were not given to the inlaws of the deceased, they were disappointed and the death of the deceased was caused by attacking the deceased with acid like substance and accordingly, on 25/07/1989 he gave an application before the Salabatpura police station and after inquiry, the complaint for the alleged offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306, 304 B and 114 of the IPC was lodged against the accused on 03/09/1989 vide CR No.I241 of 1989.