STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. RAMESH SHIVAJI HARALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 17 th May 2007 passed by the Learned Additional sessions Judge Islampur, acquitting the accused of offences punishable under Sec. 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), Sec. 306 (Abetment of suicide), Sec. 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt) read with Sec. 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. Ms Malhotra, Learned APP states that the appeal has been admitted only against accused no.1.

(2.) I have perused the impugned judgment and the evidence with the assistance of the Learned APP. Learned APP in fairness states that the evidence does not prove the alleged demand of Rs.2.00 lacs for which, the accused no.1 was alleged to have tortured and beaten his deceased wife Suvarna.

(3.) Prosecution interestingly has produced one Sanjay Ganpati Patil (P.W.-7) as an independent witness to prove the demand of Rs.2.00 lacs by the accused from the deceased. P.W.-7 states that he is from the village as one Mahadev Bapu Raskar, who was his friend and Mr. Raskar told him that daughter of Ashok Kolekar (P.W.-2-complainant), his maternal aunt's son was married to accused no.1 who was from Yedemachhindra. P.W.-7 says that accused no.1 had kept his son Prathamesh alongwith him and had left his wife deceased Suvarna at her parents house and 2 to 4 days thereafter, Mahadev Raskar and four others took Suvarna (deceased) with them and gone to the village of accused to drop her at her matrimonial house. P.W.-7 further deposed that accused no.1, his mother and father were demanding Rs.2.00 lacs from deceased Suvarna's parents and those people persuaded accused no.1 and his father not to demand since P.W.-2 did not have the sum of Rs.2.00 lacs. P.W.-7 has not stated anything about when the incident took place and he has further admitted that Mahadev Raskar was not so close to him that he would tell about his relatives to him. P.W.-7 further says that he had no reason to visit Suvarna's parents' house or her in-law's house, nor he has acquaintance with accused no.1 and he did not have any conversation with Suvarna. It is not recorded in P.W.-7's statement before the police that Suvarna's husband or her in-laws demanded from Suvarna to bring Rs.2.00 lacs from her parents. There are many points, which have been raised by the Trial Court to acquit the accused, with which I agree. According to prosecution, the accused were demanding Rs.2.00 lacs to construct the RCC house, to take electricity connection etc. But in the investigation, police have not investigated as to whether the accused really wanted to construct the RCC house, or want to take electricity connection or whether they already had the electricity connection. The police have also not made enquiry with any independent witness nor the prosecution has examined any independent witness to find out whether the accused were really harassing Suvarna in connection with their demand for money. Even Mahadev Raskar, Bapu Raskar and Sanjay Hubale, whose names have come in evidence of other witness, have not been examined on behalf of the prosecution. Moreover, from the testimony of complainant itself, it appears that the relationship between accused no.1 and Suvarna was quiet cordial.