RUKMINI YESHWANT KHARADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order passed by the Sessions Judge, Sangli dated 30th June, 2004 in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2003. The trial Court found appellants/accused Nos. 1 to 3 guilty of offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'i. P. C. ) and section 498a read with section 34 of indian Penal Code. By the same Judgment, the trial Court, however, acquitted appellants/accused Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of charge under section 304b read with section 34 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, the trial Court acquitted accused No. 4 of all the charges qua him.

(2.) Briefly stated, Mrs. Seema Vishwas Kharade (hereinafter referred to as 'seema') was married to accused No. 3. Accused No. 1 is the mother of accused no. 3 (mother-in-law of deceased Seema). Accused No. 2 is the widowed sister of accused No. 3 (sister-in-law of deceased Seema). Accused No. 4 is the father of accused No. 3 (father-in-law of deceased Seema). All the accused were living together in the same house in Village Manjarde during the relevant period. The deceased was the daughter of the complainant Jagannath Tukaram Patole (PW 2). Seema was married to accused No. 3 on 28th May, 2000. The marriage was solemnized at Village Arawade as per the agreement arrived at between the two families. Seema, however, died due to hanging on 22nd April 2002 in her matrimonial house. The complaint (Exhibit 21) was recorded in the local police station at the instance of Seema's father (PW 2). He reported that Seema committed suicide on account of continuous ill-treatment meted out to her. After the said complaint was registered, investigation commenced. Initially, the investigation proceeded on the assumption that it was a case of suicide, but later on it was also investigated from the angle of murder by pressing neck of Seema by a small rope. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against the four accused. As the accused pleaded not guilty, trial proceeded. All the four accused were charged initially with offence punishable under section 498a read with section 34, section 304b read with section 34 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Later on, additional charge for offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal code was framed against all the accused. The prosecution examined the complainant Jagannath T. Patole-father of deceased Seema (PW 2) , Pankaj J. Patole-brother of deceased Seema (PW 4) and Housabai J. Patole-mother of deceased Seema (PW 5) to substantiate the case against the accused. The prosecution also examined Dr. Deepak B. Lade (PW 1) to establish the factum of cause of death of Seema. The prosecution also examined Balaso N. Patole (PW 3) who had acted as panch regarding the scene of offence. The prosecution examined Sanjay Popat Chavan (PW 6) who had taken photographs of the dead body after he suspected that it was not a natural death of Seema. Lastly, prosecution examined Madhukar S. More (PW 7) who was the Investigating officer of the case.

(3.) After analysing the evidence on record, the trial Court first noted that the death of Seema was a suicidal death. To record that finding, the trial Court has analysed the evidence of PW 1, PW 2, PW 6, PW 7, photographs (Exhibit 32) , medical certificate (Exhibit 18). So far as the finding of the trial Court that seema died a suicidal death is not subject-matter of challenge in the present appeal. In other words, both the sides have accepted that finding. In any case, there is overwhelming evidence on record to take the view that it was a case of suicidal death.