LAWS(BOM)-1992-2-37

ARJUN DHONDIBA KAMBLE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On February 14, 1992
ARJUN DHONDIBA KAMBLE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A husband, wife and their son impugn the conviction and sentence recorded against them for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498 and 105-B r/w. 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) THE victim Lalita is the daughter of Annappa Bhima Kamble who has been examined as P. W. 4 at the trial. She was wedded to appellant Mahadeo some four years prior to July 1969. The marriage was solemnized along with several others in what is known as a `samooha lagan (mass marriage ). After the marriage Lalita came to reside with the appellants. She was not treated well and in fact was subjected to vilification and beatings. The reason for inflicting ill-treatment on the girl was her not being able to extract gold and a wrist-watch from her parents for her husband Mahadeo. She used to speak of this ill-treatment on the festive occasions of Deepavali and Bendur, when she was visiting her parental home. Annappa counselled patience saying that he would get the articles the appellants had set their hearts upon the moment his financial position so permitted. The answers satisfied neither the appellants nor Lalita. The ill-treatment to which she had been subjected increased in frequency as also intensity. On 12-7-1989 the girl left the matrimonial home saying that she was going out to relieve herself. She did not return. That led to a frantic search for the missing Lalita. Appellant Jenabai had gone to Annappas village at Gijawane wanting to know whether Lalita had come there. Suspecting trouble Annappa lodged a report with the Ajra Police Station which is at Exh. 13. On 14-7-1989, the corpse of Lalita was found floating in a well. It was brought out and appellant Arjun lodged a report which is at Exh. 25. In that report, it was alleged that Lalitas behaviour was not always proper, that Jenabai had advised her to improve her behaviour, that she had drowned herself angered at her mother-in-laws tongue-lashing. Annappas suspicions were very different and he believed that the repeated assaults and insult inflicted upon her by the appellants had driven her to commit suicide. It was on the basis of this suspicion of Annappa expressed in Exh. 21, which led to the registration of a crime against the appellants. The investigation concluded, a charge-sheet was lodged against the appellants and when the matter came up before the Assistant Sessions Judge at Kolhapur, appellants were called upon to answer the charge of having committed offences punishable under sections 304-B, 306 and 498-A all r/w. 34 of the I. P. C.

(3.) APPELLANTS pleaded not guilty. Their stand was broadly in conformity with what had been stated by Arjun in his statement dated 24-7-1989 marked Exh. 25. To substantiate the charge, the prosecution examined amongst others Devka, Raosaheb, Kalgonda, Annappa, Shila and H. C. Yadav. Their testimony was accepted and the learned Asst. Sessions Judge found appellants guilty under sections 498-A and 304-B r/w. 34 of the I. P. C. They were however acquitted of the offence punishable under section 306 r/w. 34 I. P. C.