SHEKHAR AMONKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the conviction for offences punishable under Sections 498a, 306, 323 and 506 (part II) of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under the first count, three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the second count, Rigorous Imprisonment for two months under the third count and Rigorous Imprisonment for six months under the fourth count, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Panaji, in Sessions Case No. 46/92, the appellant has preferred this appeal inter alia contending that the prosecution evidence comprises of the evidence of close relations of the deceased: that the said evidence is a tainted evidence of interested witnesses; that the said evidence is not supported by any medical evidence and in that light of the matter the entire story canvassed on behalf of the prosecution appears to be suspicious and accordingly, the conviction should be set aside, the appeal should be allowed and the appellant should be acquitted of all the charges and set at liberty waiving the sentence. We may here indicate that the learned Additional Sessions Judge has made the substantive sentence to run consecutively and in view of this the matter is put up before the Division Bench. Against these arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned public prosecutor has contended that if the evidence is examined from another angle, the conviction of the appellant under Section 498a of the Indian Penal Code is rendered inevitable and acquittal cannot be granted. He has also contended thin the conviction under other Sections is warranted but even if no deciphering the prosecution evidence it is found that the conviction under the other Sections is not warranted, the conviction under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code should not be tampered with by this Court: He has further urged that the evidence of the close relations is the natural evidence since the relations of the deceased were close-door neighbours of the appellant and even if the evidence of neighbours not related to, the deceased does not support the prosecution, there is no reason whatsoever to hold that the evidence of relations should be discarded solely on the ground that they are close relatives. These rival arguments shall have to be scrutinized in the background of the facts have been canvassed on behalf of the prosecution and further the evidence led on behalf BOMBAY HIGH COURT GOA Page 3 of 9 of the prosecution.

(2.) THE deceased Sheila, alias Sonia Amonkar, was the daughter of Smt. Chandravati Naik. The deceased Sheila married the appellant/accused and it is claimed by the prosecution that it was a love marriage and there was no objection from the family of the deceased about this marriage. Only the father of the appellant did not like this wedlock. Tile marriage certificate on record shows that the marriage took place on 12th May, 1991. The initial period witnessed the cordial relationship between husband and wife, but with the passage of time it seems that those relations became strained in as much as there was continuous physical harassment by the appellant to his wife Sheila. The continued harassment and cruelty inflicted by the appellant on the deceased culminated in Sonia committing suicide on 1st May, 1992, during the night hours. Incidentally, we may refer to the F. I. R. which has been duly proved by the prosecution witness Rekha Naik, P. W. S. The F. I. R. has been exhibited at Exhibit 5/a and it was lodged on 2nd May, 1992, at about 1. 30 a. m. The story which has been depicted in this F. I. R. is that Rekha, the sister of the deceased had been residing at Shelpem, Duter, with her mother and brothers. According to the complaint, the appellant was addicted to drink and on 30th April, 1992, the appellant had assaulted the deceased Sheila and Sheila talked about this assault to her (Rekha) and other relations. Dilating on the incident of 1st May, 1992, the story of Rekha is that since this was happening she was indoors alongwith her mother. It does not seem to be in dispute that the appellant and the deceased have been residing in a part of the same premises at a very short distance. In view of this, Rekha has tried to say that on that day at about 1. 30 p. m. the appellant and Dattaram Harmalkar, P. W. 8, were sitting in the house and were drinking liquor. Dattaram left the house after sometime and it is claimed by Rekha that the appellant Shekhar started assaulting her sister Sheila. She saw for herself from the entrance door that the appellant started giving kicks to Sheila alias Sonia. Not only that, he gave slaps to the deceased and her sister therefore cried out and rushed out of the house shouting that the appellant was assaulting her. Shekhar chased the deceased, caught hold of her, removed her forcibly inside the house and at that time Rekha says that the mode of dragging Sheila was holding the hair of Sonia and dragging her forcibly. Rekha and her other sister and brother tried to intervene and rescue Sheila from the hands of the appellant, but according to Rekha the appellant pleaded with them that they should not interfere in the affairs between husband and wife. The further story narrated in the F. I. R. is that the appellant removed forcibly the deceased and further started assaulting her. Again the sisters went to, the rescue, but they were told firmly that it was not their business to interfere in the affairs of husband and wife. At that time Madhusudan Naik, P. W. 9, the brother of the deceased, tried to bring about reconciliation, but that did not deter the appellant from continuing to physically beat the deceased. At about 6 p. m. on the same day according to Rekha, the appellant went out and brought liquor. He consumed the liquor and started assaulting Sheila alias Sonia but it seems that the complainant Rekha thought fit not to interfere since the appellant had abused them and further threatened them saying that he would murder them. At about 8. 30 p. m. the appellant left and possibly returned by about 9. 30 p. m. Rekha spotted the appellant going to the house and giving kicks to the door. In consequence the door opened and Rekha stated that she heard the cries of the appellant, Aye, aye. Initially, they did not pay any heed to these cries, but when those cries were repeated they rushed to the house of the appellant and found to their horror that the deceased Sheila was hanging to a rafter. At that stage she had tied herself with a sari around her neck. Someone from the crowd brought down Sheila by cutting the sari. She was then removed to the Asilo Hospital where the doctor examined her and declared Sheila as dead.

(3.) INCIDENTALLY, it is pertinent to note that the last paragraph of the F. I. R. highlights the previous abuse between husband and wife and in that regards Rekha has said that the appellant has been continuously assaulting her sister in consequence whereof her sister was forced to commit suicide and when the family members of the deceased tried to interfere, the appellant threatened all of them with dire consequences.