AJIT CHOTELAL SHAH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this appeal, the appellant challenges the Judgment and order dated 29-8-1994, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gr. Bombay, in Sessions Case No.605 of 1987, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced in the manner stated hereinafter:- (i)Under Section 498-A IPC to three yeas RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- i. d. to suffer 6 months RI; (ii)Under Section 304-B IPC to seven years RI; and (iii)Under Section 306 of IPC to seven years RI and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo 6 months RI. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) IN short, the prosecution case runs as under:- The deceased Alka was the daughter of Kantilal Shah, P. W.6 . Her first marriage from which she had a daughter broke down. On 22-12-1986, she married the appellant whose first marriage too, had failed. He had a son from his first wife. After the marriage, the appellant went to his native place along with Alka and came back after 8 days and started living in Pitru Chhaya Building, in Shimpoli nagar, Borivali (W) Mumbai. Two to three days, after the appellant had returned with Alka, Kantilal went to the appellant's house and gave all the gifts, articles, utensils and ornaments etc which were received in the marriage. Eight to ten days later, Alka came to Kantilal and started complaining that the appellant was harassing her on the ground that he had not returned all the ornaments. Alka also told Kantilal that the appellant was demanding Rs. 50,000/- for his business. Alka tried to persuade the appellant not to make any demand as her father had returned all the ornaments and had given an assurance that if he treated her well, he would give whatever was possible within his means. It is said that in order to prevent further illtreatment of Alka, Kantilal went to the house of one Maganlal Ajmera, P. W. 1 who was instrumental in getting the marriage settled. Evidence of Maganlal is that within a month of Akla's marriage, Kantilal came and told him that Alka was being harassed and consequently, he should accompany him to the house of the appellant to persuade him not to illtreat her. Maganlal also stated that Kantilal told him that the appellant was demanding valuable articles from Alka. Evidence of Maganlal and Kantilal is that they went to the house of the appellant, Alka was also present there and told them that the appellant was alleging that the articles received in the marriage, had not been given and was demanding that they should be given. Evidence is that Maganlal and Kantilal asked the appellant to remain contended with whatever he had been given and to live happily, with Alka. Appellant is said to have agreed that he would treat Alka well. Evidence of Kantilal is that the appellant did not like his and Maganlal's visit and consequently, beat Alka, who came and complained to him. Kantilal again went to the house of the appellant and asked him as to why he was illtreating Alka and brought her to his house for 3 to 4 days. The appellant telephoned Kantilal and informed him that he was unwell and consequently Kantilal sent back Alka along with her daughter and his nephew Bharat to the house of the appellant. It is said that the appellant again started illtreating Alka and beating her on the ground that all the ornaments were not given. Alka complained of this illtreatment to Kantilal. On 25-2-1987, Alka came to Kantilal's house and informed him that it was becoming unbearable for her to tolerate illtreatment meted out by the appellant. Kantilal's mother however, assured her that she would send some respectable members of the community to resolve the situation. On this assurance, Alka again went back to the appellant's house. On 26-2-1987, at about 8 . 45 to 9 a. m. Alka came to the house of her neighbour Dilipbhai Parekh, P. W. 4 and told him that the appellant was pressurising her to demand valuables from parents. Dilip pacified her and promised that he would inform her parents and bring them in the evening. Ten fifteen minutes later, Dilipbhai and another neighbour Smt. Bhartiben P. W. 3, heard shouts of the neighbours and found that Alka was burning in her house. They along with Dhansukhlal and Vinodbhai Parekh extinguished the fire. Thereafter, Dilipbhai tried to contact Kantilal on phone but, having failed in his bid he proceeded for his house personally. On the way, he met Himmatlal (Alka's uncle) and informed him. Evidence of Kantilal is that at about 9 . 15 a. m. the same day, Himmatlal informed him on phone at his factory that Alka was burnt. Consequently, Kantilal came to the house of the appellant and found that Alka was in a burnt condition. It is said that Kantilal asked Alka as to what had happened. She replied that she was disgusted on account of the illtreatment and harassment and hence, had burnt herself. On a taxi, Kantilal and the neighbours, took Alka to Bharat Nursing Home in Borivali (W) Bombay.

(3.) IMMEDIATELY after recording Exhibit 18, PSI Ghadge, came to the police station and registered C. R. No.84 of 1987 under Section 498-A IPC against the appellant. Thereafter, he went to the place of the incident and recovered therefrom a plastic can containing kerosene, two burnt match sticks, burnt pieces of cloth etc. During the course of investigation PSI Ghadge, interrogated a large number of persons including Kantilal, Dilipbhai, Bhartiben, Maganlal and Dhansukhbhai. After completing the investigation, he submitted a charge sheet against the appellant.