KAILASH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order, dated 19.1.2011, rendered by the learned Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Gangakhed, thereby convicting appellant nos. 1 to 3 herein (original accused nos. 1 to 3) for the offences punishable under Sections 306,498 A r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,500/by each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 60 days by each of them; and also sentencing them for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- by each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 days by each of them, and also directing that out of the total fine amount of Rs.6,000/-, an amount of Rs.5,000/- be paid to the complainant i.e. respondent no.2 herein i.e. father of the victim as compensation under Section 357 (I) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and further directing that all the afore said sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts and the events leading to the present appeal are briefly stated herein below. Victim Bhagyashri married with appellant no.l Kailash in December, 2008 and appellant no.2 Baburao is her fatherinlaw and appellant no.3 Sanjeevani is her motherinlaw. After the marriage, deceased Bhagyashri started residing with appellant nos. 1 to 3 at her matrimonial home. Initially, appellants herein treated victim Bhagyashri well for the period of one month. However, it is alleged that thereafter they started making demand of Rs.2,00,000/-from her for purchase of plot. According to the complainant, appellant no. 1 used to demand money even on phone, as well as they used to insist the deceased to bring money from her parental house. However, respondent no.2 i.e. original complainant could not comply with the said demand due to his poor financial condition, and therefore, the accused even left deceased Bhagyashri to his house. At that time, it is alleged that victim Bhagyashri informed that the appellants used to drive her out of house and they used to insult her on account of her black complexion. Victim Bhagyashri remained pregnant, but accused nos. 2 and 3 were saying that they were not able to maintain three persons including her child, and hence, they insisted upon her to abort the child. According to the complainant, he tried to persuade the appellants, but they subjected victim Bhagyashri to mental and physical torture. It is alleged that appellant no. I used to consume liquor and assault victim Bhagyashri. It is also alleged that even the appellants used to starve victim Bhagyashri. It is further alleged that the harassment, illtreatment and mental and physical torture, to which victim Bhagyashri was subjected at the hands of the appellants, ultimately culminated into committal of suicide by deceased Bhagyashri by hanging herself by means of nylon rope on 4.7.2009.

(3.) Accordingly, a report about suicidal death of married woman, namely Bhagyashri was lodged on 4.7.2009 by PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Shinde at Sonpeth police station and in pursuance of the registration of A.D. No. 14 of 2009 (Exh.27), under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, inquiry was initiated in the matter. Accordingly PW6 A.P.I. Deepak Shinde along with the staff went to the spot of the incident and prepared the spot panchanama (Exh.18) and seized one white colour nylon rope from the spot. PW5 Head Constable Kejgir prepared the inquest panchanama (Exh.16) of the dead body of the victim, which was sent for postmortem examination and on the same day, PW7 Dr. Siddheshwar Halge performed the postmortem on the dead body of victim Bhagyashri and issued the provisional death certiicate (Exh.31) mentioning the provisional cause of death, as cardio respiratory failure due to asphyxia due to hanging and viscera was preserved for chemical analysis.