STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. TARAMATI TUKARAM MHADGUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is an office noting that notice was served on Respondent Nos.1 and 2. They have stated that they are poor and want advocate from legal aid at government expense. The court, therefore, appointed Mr.Vaibhav Charalwar on behalf of respondents.

(2.) This appeal impugns an order and judgment dated 27th February 2004 whereby the Learned Sessions Court had acquitted Accused Nos. 1 and 2 of offences punishable under Sections 498 - A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 306 (Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide) r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Accused No. 1, Taramati Tukaram Mhadgut is the mother-in-law of deceased, Latika Lawoo Thakur (Latika). Accused No. 2, Lawoo Tukaram Mhadgut is the husband of late Latika.

(3.) In October 2001 it is alleged by prosecution that Latika had come to Math on a visit and with instructions from Accused Nos. 1 and 2 to return on the same day. She could not return on the same day to Amberi. P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 dropped the deceased back to Math on the next day. On reaching Math, Accused No.1 allegedly asked Latika why she had returned a day later and also suggested to P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 that they were not aware of her nature. In December 2001, when P.W. 2 was visiting Latika, Accused No.1 allegedly taunted that Latika did not have a smiling face and was not talkative. Latika accompanied P.W. 2 back to the bus stand and during such time informed P.W. 2 that despite doing all the work, Accused No. 1 scolded Latika. In January 2002 when P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 visited Latika, Accused No.1 once again allegedly stated that Latika did not have a smiling face and was of rotten nature and that if Accused No. 2 left Latika, she would be in trouble. In February 2002, the uncle of P.W. 1 expired and thus P.W. 2 had to travel to Mumbai leaving her son behind at Math. P.W. 2 requested Latika to stay at Math for 4 days to look after her son. Due to certain reasons, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 could not return within 4 days. Latika on the 4th day called P.W. 1 and informed him that Accused No. 2 had asked the deceased to return immediately otherwise she would not be permitted in the house. When P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 reached Math from Mumbai after 2 days, Latika was scared and was weeping. Latika said that she should immediately reach Amberi otherwise Accused No. 2 would scold her. P.W. 1 accompanied Latika to Math and convinced Accused No. 2 not to scold her. In May 2002, about 3 months after the last visit to Math, Latika visited Math for 2 days. During that visit Latika allegedly informed P.W. 1 that she was beaten how (no details provided), number of times or the date is not mentioned - very vague by Accused No. 1 for not picking up the dinner plate of Accused No.2 in time. P.W. 2 once again visited Latika on 9th June 2002. On reaching she was informed by Accused No. 1 that she was helping Accused No. 2 in digging a well. Latika on being called back and seeing P.W. 2 started weeping. Latika once again told P.W. 2 that despite doing all the work she was scolded by Accused No. 1. Latika accompanied P.W. 2 to the bus-stand when she informed P.W. 2 that Accused No. 2 was not maintaining sexual relations with her and that she was being scolded by the Accused No.1. This is the only time Latika has said that. On 10th June 2002, P.W. 2 was informed by a certain Amol (neighbour) that he had received a call and was informed that Latika was serious. P.W. 2, P.W. 3, Vasudev (P.W. 1's cousin brother) and sister of P.W. 2 went to Amberi. They saw the dead-body of Latika. They were informed that Latika committed suicide by consuming insecticide. P.W. 1 filed a report on 15th June 2002.