Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, heard two connected criminal appeals arising from the judgment and order of conviction dated 3 July 2004 passed by the 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 2 of 2004. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 438 of 2004 were original accused no. 2 Namdeo Ganpat Solanke and original accused no. 3 Sau. Vimal Namdeo Solanke, while Criminal Appeal No. 474 of 2004 was filed by original accused no. 1 Sandip Namdeo Solanke, the husband of the deceased. The deceased, Vanita, was found dead in her matrimonial home on 27 November 2003, with a blackish contusion around her neck. Initially, an accidental death inquiry was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The father of the deceased lodged a written report on 29 November 2003, alleging that the accused had subjected his daughter to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry demands, which ultimately drove her to commit suicide. The trial court convicted the husband, father-in-law, and mother-in-law under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for one year and seven and a half years respectively, while acquitting the brother-in-law. During the pendency of the appeals, original accused no. 2 Namdeo died on 24 September 2012, and the appeal insofar as it related to him was disposed of as abated. The surviving appellants challenged the convictions, primarily arguing that there was an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, that the allegations against the in-laws were general and vague, and that the rope seized was not sent for chemical analysis. The State supported the conviction, contending that the delay was adequately explained, the evidence demonstrated sustained harassment, and the role of instigation warranted the application of Section 34 IPC. The judgment, as available, sets out the prosecution case and the competing submissions but does not include the court's analysis or final decision on the merits of the appeals.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay in lodging the First Information Report renders the prosecution case doubtful; Whether the evidence against original accused nos.2 and 3 is sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (01) 149
Criminal Appeal No.438 of 2004 and Criminal Appeal No.474 of 2004
Shri Anil S. Mardikar, Senior Counsel with Ms Akshaya Kshirsagar for appellants; Shri M.K. Pathan, Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent
Namdeo Ganpat Solanke (deceased), Sau.Vimal Namdeo Solanke, and Sandip Namdeo Solanke
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for dowry harassment and abetment of suicide.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought setting aside of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Washim.
Filing Reason
The accused were convicted under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC for subjecting the deceased to cruelty and abetting her suicide; the appeals challenged the conviction on grounds of delayed FIR and insufficient evidence.
Previous Decisions
The 3rd Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No.2/2004 convicted original accused nos.1, 2, and 3 under Sections 498A and 306/34 IPC and acquitted original accused no.4 Gajanan Solanke on 3.7.2004.
Issues
Whether the delay in lodging the FIR was fatal to the prosecution case.
Whether the evidence against accused no.2 and no.3 was general and insufficient for conviction.
Whether the rope should have been sent for chemical analysis.
Whether the appeal of deceased Namdeo abated.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the FIR was lodged with delay, the explanation offered was not plausible, and the entire prosecution case became doubtful. Reliance was placed on Ramaiah @ Rama, Khemraj Hiralal Agrawal, and Shivaji Keraba Metkari. It was also contended that allegations against Namdeo and Vimal were general, and the rope was not sent to the Chemical Analyzer.
State contended that the first informant explained the delay both in the FIR and in testimony, and that the evidence clearly established harassment by the husband. Reliance was placed on Munshi Prasad and Satish Shetty. It was submitted that the role of the in-laws was that of instigation, attracting Section 34 IPC, and the appeals deserved to be dismissed.
Judgment Excerpts
Namdeo Ganpat Solanke, expired on 24.9.2012 and after intimation of the death was given, the Block Development Officer, Grampanchayat Shirpur Jain, issued the 'Exhibit X'...
Police Station Officer Nandkishor Madhaorao Shelke (PW7) was attached to Shirpur Police Station. On the said day, one Chandrashekhar Wankhede, Police Patil of Shirpur, gave his written intimation informing that Sau.Vanita, the wife of accused No.1 Sandip, has died in her house...
I hereby lodged a report as under: My daughter named Vanita was married to Sandeep Namdeo Solanke in March 2003 at Chandas. The respondents took Rs.50,000/ from me as a dowry amount...
Procedural History
FIR No.123/2003 registered on 29.11.2003 under Sections 304B, 498A, 306 read with 34 IPC at Shirpur Police Station. Charge-sheet filed and case committed to Sessions Court as Sessions Trial No.2/2004. Charges framed on 27.2.2004 under Sections 306/34 and 498A IPC. Conviction recorded on 3.7.2004 against accused nos.1-3; accused no.4 acquitted. Appeals filed in 2004. During pendency, appellant Namdeo died on 24.9.2012; appeal abated as to him. Heard on 25.1.2019 by V.M. Deshpande, J.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498A, 306, 34, 304B
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 174
