STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. ROOPSAHEB RAMGONDA PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal against acquittal under section 378 of the CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973, the State of Maharashtra has taken exception to the judgment and order dated 22nd November, 1988 passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur, in Sessions Case No. 143 of 1987. By the said judgment and order the respondents/ accused who were prosecuted for the offence punishable under section 498-A and section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were acquitted.

(2.) THIS is yet another case where there was a sad end of the life of a young married woman. The case of the prosecution is that one Drakashyani was the wife of accused No. 1 Raopsaheb. The marriage took place sometime in the year 1982. The accused No. 2 is the elder brother of Raopsaheb and accused no. 3 is the mother of the accused Nos. 1 and 2. The age of the said drakashayani (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was 22 years. The accused were frequently demanding two tolas of gold and scooter from the father of the deceased and that the accused were frequently beating the deceased. As a result of the ill-treatment, the deceased set herself on fire on 16th July, 1987. While undergoing medical treatment she expired. The prosecution examined 7 witnesses. P. W. 1 Dr. R. D. Thorat conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. P. W. 2 Ramgonda is the father of the deceased P. W. 3 Annadgonda is the uncle of the deceased. P. W. Smt. Sushila is the mother of the deceased. P. W. 5 Maruti Pawar is the Executive Magistrate who recorded the dying declaration of the deceased. P. W. 6 Dr. Kailash Prabhu the Medical Practitioner who examined the deceased before her dying declaration was recorded. P. W. Ravasaheb Patil is the Investigating Officer. The learned Judge has disbelieved the evidence of P. W. 2 Ramgonda, father of the deceased. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Judge held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused.

(3.) MS. P. H. Kantharia, the learned A. P. P. heavily replied upon the letter at exhibit 22 written by the deceased her grand father and the endorsement made by the accused No. 1 on the said letter. She also relied upon another letter at Exh. 23 sent by the deceased to her grand father. The learned A. P. P. also relied upon the letters written by the accused No. 1 to the father of the deceased. The learned Counsel further submitted that from the endorsement made by the accused No. 1 in the handwriting on the letter at Exh. 22 it is very clear that the respondent No. 1 had beaten the deceased on many occasions. She submitted that the last letter written then by the accused No. 1 on the date of incident shows that due to the ill-treatment meted to her, the deceased was likely to do something drastic and therefore by the said letter the accused called upon the father of the deceased to take away the deceased. She submitted that the evidence of the parents of the deceased is sufficient to establish the offence. She submitted that except for holding that the guilt of the accused is established beyond reasonable document no other view ought have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record.