STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PARKASH DAYANU PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned APP for the appellant - State and the counsel for the respondents - Original accused.

(2.) This is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of the accused from offences under section 498-A, 306, 304-B read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused No. 2 Rajakka is the sister of accused No. 1. The complainant in this case is Bapu Mahadeo Nika, resident of Kolhapur. He had three daughters, one of them was Ujwala. Ujwala developed intimate love relations with accused No. 1 and thereafter both of them married on 7-2-1988 and started residing at Village male. Accused No. 2 was married but she was residing with accused No. 1 i. e. her brother. Ujwala's father later on learnt that Ujwala was harassed and ill-treated for the demand of dowry and also beaten and therefore according to the prosecution she committed suicide between 1st December, 1988 to 4th december, 1988 by jumping into the well, for which her father Bapu lodged a complaint at Kadoli police station. Body of Ujwala was taken out from the well, inquest panchanama was made, spot panchanama was made and the post mortem was conducted on the body. The viscera of deceased Ujwala was sent to chemical Analyser and charge-sheet came to be filed under section 498-A read with 34, 306 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code. Defence of the accused was of total denial. According to them Ujwala had gone to the well to fetch water, but accidentally fell in water and drowned herself but the father falsely implicated the accused.

(3.) The trial Court acquitted the accused of all the offences because firstly there was no evidence that Ujwala committed suicide. Admittedly this was not a case of homicidal death. But according to the prosecution Ujwala was compelled to commit suicide because of the insistent demand of dowry. The trial Court found that there is absolutely no evidence to show that it was a case of suicide. No doubt the death was unnatural but it could be accidental also and the prosecution evidence did not rule out the possibility of the accidental death. In view of these clear cut findings of the trial Court, the very basis of the prosecution case goes away. Secondly the trial Court found the story of the prosecution about ill-treatment to Ujwala by the accused unnatural, firstly, because Ujwala had married with accused No. 1 against the wishes of her father. The father was having grudge against the accused No. 1 from the beginning for this reason. In that view of the matter, it was found by the trial Court that Ujwala would not have confided in her father about the so-called ill-treatment. Secondly, it was an admitted fact that Ujwala and accused No. 1 had love marriage, then, in that background there is no explanation from the prosecution how the demand of dowry cropped in and for what reason.