SHAMRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In instant appeal, appellant takes an exception to the judgment and order dtd. 31/1/2004 passed by 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.46 of 2001, convicting him for offence punishable under Sec. 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) Police Station Taluka Jalna registered crime bearing no.146 of 2000 for offence punishable under Sec. 498A and 306 read with 34 of IPC on receipt of report at Exh.22 from brother of deceased, who alleged that, his sister Parvatabai was married with appellant, who was already married. Everything was smooth for a period of two years. Husband was addicted to liquor and started ill treatment to deceased. Accused no.2, i.e. first wife of appellant instigated husband to assault his sister. Whenever she came, she reported above ill treatment. 15 days prior to the death, he had been to his sister. That time, accused husband assaulted him for coming to see her. After two days of his return, he got message that his sister was admitted in civil hospital. Then he learnt that, his sister had committed suicide by jumping into the well and therefore, he lodged above report (Exh.22), on the basis of which, police registered above crime.

(3.) Sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant is that, prosecution came with a case that, deceased Parvatabai was married with accused, who was already married. It is alleged that, second marriage was performed with deceased Parvatabai because first wife did not bear child. However, he pointed out that, subsequently, first wife gave birth to daughter and even Parvatabai gave birth to son. With this factual background, learned counsel pointed out that there was no question of cruelty. That, witnesses are not clear and consistent on the point of cruelty and that mere allegations are levelled that husband get addicted to liquor and assaulted Parvatabai. That, specific instances are not given by informant except stating that 15 days back, when he went to see his sister Parvatabai, he was assaulted by stick. According to learned counsel, informant did not lodge any report to that extent. According to him, allegations are false, baseless and general in nature on the point of Sec. 498A of IPC. He pointed out that, according to informant, his sister was treated well for two years, but his own mother PW3 contradicts him by stating that Parvatabai was treated properly for a period of five years. Therefore, learned counsel submits that, witnesses are not only inconsistent, but they are levelling omnibus allegations without specifying ill treatment. He further pointed out that, there is no distinct or independent evidence of neighbour on the point of ill treatment and only family members are examined. That, Sec. 306 of IPC is concerned, he pointed out that, evidence does not suggest inducement or abetment so as to attract said charge. He pointed out that, in fact occurrence was reported as 'AD'. He would strenuously submit that, there is no evidence to show that, husband alone subjected deceased to such cruelty that she was compelled to end up her life. That, death of Parvatabai had taken place on 14/7/2000, but there is no evidence to show what happened prior to alleged incident. He took this court through the Accidental Death (AD) reported by brother of accused and submitted that mere information is passed that Parvatabai left the house at 8:00 p.m. of 13/7/2000. That, with such material, no concrete opinion could be formed as to what prompted deceased to end up her life. Resultantly, according to him, there being nothing to show any inducement or abetment with mens rea, conviction of appellant husband alone, particularly when on same set of evidence accused no.2 is acquitted, is unjustified and hence he seeks indulgence by allowing the appeal.