ANANT TUKARAM SHINDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred by the appellant accused no.1 against the order of his conviction and sentence dated 23-9-1988 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, in Sessions Case No.5 of 1988.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in short, is that the marriage between the appellant-accused no.1 and deceased Meera took place some time in the year 1982. After marriage, Meera came to be named as Anita. Accused no.1 and Meera cohabited happily for about 2 years. However, disputes arose between them and complaints were made to the police patil of village Javade. Meera complained to him that her husband ill-treated her on the ground that she was deaf and did not behave and dress properly. Meera had made such complaints to her mother whenever she had gone to her mother's house. It is alleged that one year before the incident in question, at night, the appellant-accused no.1 called his wife Meera outside the house and demanded her signature on a blank paper with a view to enable him to marry a second wife and on her refusal, he did not allow her to enter the house and as such Meera went to a temple beyond Tatke wadi and stayed there throughout the whole night. THEreafter on the next day onwards negotiations between Meera's parents and accused nos.1 and 2 started to settle the dispute since accused no.1 refused to take back Meera and proposed to have divorce. THEreafter proceedings were instituted for maintenance. However, settlement was arrived at after some period and the said application was not pressed and the same was disposed of and Meera came back to reside with accused no.1. According to the case of the prosecution, though there was settlement between accused no.1 and Meera, there was no change in the behaviour of accused no.1 and Meera was subjected to ill-treatment as before. It is alleged that on 9-5-1987 Meera was found lying dead in the brook behind the new house of accused no.1, the appellant herein, by P.W.1 Padhye\ and he accordingly informed the village Kotwal and thereafter informed the police about the same. THEreafter police came to the spot and had drawn inquest panchanama. P.W.2 Chandrakant Atmaram Shinde lodged complaint. Statements of various witnesses were recorded. THE dead body of Meera @ Anita was sent for post-mortem examination and the post-mortem report was duly received. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Rajapur, against the accused, who committed the matter to the Court of Sessions, Ratnagiri, for its trial.

(3.) IT has been submitted by Mr.S.G.Samant, learned Counsel for the appellant-accused no.1 that the judgment delivered by the learned trial Judge is an absurd one. The charge for offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C. has not been proved against the appellant-accused no.1. Despite that, an independent charge for offence punishable under section 498-A I.P.C. has been held to be proved against the appellant-accused no.1. The learned Judge relied on the evidence in some criminal application under section 125 Cr.P.C. regarding maintenance claimed by deceased Meera alias Anita which resulted into compromise and thereafter she was staying with the appellant-accused no.1. Having gone through the record and proceedings of this case, I find that this is a very unfortunate incident brought on record and because of the weakness of the investigating agency, the culprit could not be punished. However, the Court cannot go beyond the law. In the instant case, the learned Judge has committed a blunder in convicting the appellant-accused no.1 for offence punishable under section 498-A I.P.C. and had shown disregard to the settled law. Once it is held that the appellant-accused no.1, the husband of the deceased, is not responsible for the death of his wife and the death was proved to be homicidal one, the charge for the offence punishable under section 498-A I.P.C. is unsustainable and the appellant-accused no.1 is bound to be acquitted for the said offence. Therefore, the order of conviction and sentence for that offence deserves to be set aside and the appellant-accused no.1 is entitled for a clean acquittal.