SURESH RAGHUNATH KOCHARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Criminal Revision Application challenges the legality and propriety of the judgment and order dated 14th February, 1991 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Satara, in Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1989 by which judgment and order he has confirmed the judgment and order dated 10th May, 1989 passed by the learned III Assistant Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No. 118 of 1988 convicting both the petitioners for offences under section 498-A and section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and, in respect of the offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, sentencing each of them for rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default rigorous imprisonment for six months, and in respect of the offence under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, for rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for two years.

(2.) THE victim is Mangal the wife of petitioner No. 1. She died by drowning in a well and her body was recovered on the afternoon of 24th October, 1985. Her parental place is Awarde, Taluka Patan, District Satara. The petitioner are residents of Vanvasmachi, Taluka Karad, District Satara. Petitioner No. 2 is the mother of petitioner No. 1. The Marriage of Mangal with petitioners No. 1 took place in May 1984 at Vanvasmachi. The prosecution case shortly was as follows: Soon after the marriage the petitioners started demanding gold and safari suit from Mangals parents. They complained that the bormal which was given to Mangal by her parents at the time of marriage was less than one tola in weight and they harassed Mangal to obtain from her parents enough gold to make up one tola. A gold ring was also demanded. Mangal was subjected to harassment and cruel treatment in order to obtain these dowry gifts from her parents. Mangal, during her visits to her parental place spoke about the harassment/cruelty to her and about the demands for dowry. She sent one chit to her uncle Jaysing Yeshwant Chavan (P. W. 6) asking Jaysing to ask her father to come and fetcher from Vanvasmachi immediately as she was subjected to beating on account of demands for bormal and other items. She also sent by post a post card in June 1985 to her father asking him to come to Vanvasmachi as there was a plan there to harm her. Ultimately Mangal committed suicide by drowning in a well belonging to one Pawar which is adjacent to the land of petitioner No. 1 her body being discovered in the well on 24th October, 1985. According to the charge, Mangal committed suicide sometime between 22nd October, 1985 and 24th October, 1985.

(3.) THE prosecution led evidence of eight witnesses. Anant Prabhu Mane, P. W. I, is a panch witness. He proved the panchanama (Exhibit II) which described the situation of the well. That evidence is not material for the purpose of this Criminal Revision Application. Govind Shankar Mane, P. W. 2, is also a panch witness. Apart from the inquest panchanama (Exhibit 8) he was also concerned with Exhibit 13, but he was hostile to the prosecution and his evidence does not carry the prosecution any further so far as this Criminal Revision Application is concerned. P. W. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 are relations of the parties and we will proceed, in the following paragraphs, to give a gist of their evidence. Atmaram Dadaram Jadhav, P. W. 8, is the investigating officer. He deposed that petitioner No. 2 had lodged missing report regarding Mangal on 23rd October, 1985. He also deposed that petitioner No. 1 made discovery statement regarding whip and produced the whip from his house but there was no corroboration to this evidence and the Courts below have not relied, rightly, on the evidence regarding discovery of whip.