MONOHAR RANGNATH PATIL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant husband for offences punishable under Section 498A, 304-B and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs. 500/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for one month, respectively on each of the three counts, imposed upon the appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, on conclusion of Sessions Case No. 707 of 1990. Facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:-

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Public prosecutor for the State. With the help of both I have gone through the evidence on record.

(3.) Pw 1 Ravindra victim's brother, who states about the victim's marriage performed on 13th May, 1990. He states that after the marriage the victim resided at the native place of appellant till 21st May, 1990 and came to Powai, Mumbai, her matrimonial home, on 22nd May, 1990. After a week, she came alongwith the appellant to PW 1's house for celebrating birthday of PW 2 Sunita's son. After birthday was over, PW 1's wife and sister conveyed that the appellant had demanded gifts and presents received in the marriage and had also claimed that PW 1 should purchase sarees for the victim. On 15th June, 1990, PW 2 Sunita and PW 1's wife went to the appellant's house. They noticed that the victim had swelling on the face and burn injuries on hands. The victim conveyed that these injuries were caused by the appellant, who has insisted on bringing the remaining presents given in the marriage like electric fans etc. The victim had told the wife of PW 1 not to question the appellant as this would result in further torture. Since PW 2 Sunita and Bharati the wife of PW 1 had suggested that Ravindra should see the victim as soon as possible. On 21st June, 1990 Ravindra went to the appellant's house. The appellant was present at the house. The victim started weeping and requested the witness to take her back immediately. The appellant is alleged to have told that since the wife of his brother was not keeping good health, victim should not be taken at that time. On 25th June, 1990 Ravindra received message that the victim was admitted to Rajawadi Hospital and therefore, he went there and found that the victim was dead. He claims to have gone to the police at about 2.00 a.m., but since none was there to receive his report, he lodged the report at 13.15 hrs on the next day which he proved at Exh. 6. The cross-examination of this witness is very short. As has been noted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in the cross-examination there is no whisper about the incident dated 21st June, 1990. There are two contradictions as to how the witness got to know about the demands made on 29th May, 1990. It seems that the witness had stated in his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that the victim Kalpana had told him personally about this demand. However, in the evidence before the Court, witness stated that he had learnt it from his wife and sister. He also contradicted the portion in his statement to the effect that he told the victim that he had returned all the presents received and was not in a position to fulfill the demands. The crucial point is that there is no cross examination about the incident dated 21st June, 1990, as also what was reported to the witness by his wife and his sister PW 1 Sunita on 15th June, 1990.