Case Note & Summary
The appeals arose from the judgment and order dated 20 April 2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2011, convicting accused No. 1 under Sections 498A, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and accused Nos. 2 to 4 under Section 498A IPC. The prosecution case was that Komal, wife of accused No. 1 Sevak Ramrao Rathod, was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with a demand of Rs. 50,000 for purchase of an autorickshaw. It was alleged that the accused persons, including her husband, brother-in-law, and sisters-in-law, had physically and mentally harassed her. Prior to the incident, about seven months earlier, Komal had consumed poison due to such harassment but survived. On 14 July 2011, her dead body was found floating in a well at Bhategaon. The police initially registered an accidental death case, but upon the father’s complaint, a crime was registered under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, and 201 read with 34 IPC. The post‑mortem revealed intracranial hemorrhage due to head injury. The prosecution alleged that the accused, in furtherance of common intention, caused the head injury and threw the body into the well, and that a wooden rafter was recovered at the instance of accused No. 1. The accused pleaded not guilty, but after trial they were convicted as stated. In the appeals, the appellants challenged the convictions by arguing that the evidence of cruelty was contradictory, insufficient, and exaggerated; that the demand of Rs. 50,000 was improbable given the husband’s financial position; that the earlier poisoning incident was not criminal and did not lead to any complaint; that the co‑accused, particularly the sisters, were not residing with the couple at the relevant time; and that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove homicidal death. The defence contended that the autopsy doctor was not qualified to determine the cause of death, that he did not perform the diadem test, and that the head injury could have been caused accidentally and the death could be due to dry drowning. The arguments also highlighted that the other accused had no role in the alleged murder. The appeals were heard together by a division bench of the High Court, and judgment was reserved on 30 March 2017 and pronounced on 11 April 2017. The text provided does not contain the court’s analysis or final decision on the appeals.
Issue of Consideration
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.221 OF 2013
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 69
Criminal Appeal No. 221 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 209 of 2013
S.S. Shinde, K.K. Sonawane
Mr. V.R. Dhorde for Appellants, Mr. S.B. Yawalkar for Respondent/State
Sevak Ramrao Rathod (in Appeal No. 221/2013), Premdas Ramrao Rathod, Kavita Devidas Chavan, Rekha Premdas Rathod (in Appeal No. 209/2013)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeals against conviction for offences under the Indian Penal Code
Remedy Sought
Appellants seek setting aside of conviction and sentence
Filing Reason
Conviction for cruelty and murder
Previous Decisions
Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, convicted the accused in Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2011
Submissions/Arguments
Counsel for appellants submitted that the evidence of cruelty was contradictory, insufficient, and contained material omissions and exaggerations.
The father of the deceased could not recall the date of marriage, rendering his testimony unreliable.
The demand of Rs. 50,000 was improbable because the husband owned 10 acres of irrigated land and was financially better off than the complainant.
The earlier incident of poison consumption was not criminal; the husband himself took the deceased to hospital and she recovered, and no complaint was filed.
Evidence of Sitaram Jadhav (PW4) and Vinayak Jadhav (PW5) did not establish day‑to‑day knowledge of Komal’s life, and their statements were inconsistent.
Co‑accused Nos. 2 to 4 were not residing with the couple; one sister was married before the marriage of the deceased and had no role.
Medical evidence did not prove homicidal death; the autopsy doctor was not qualified and failed to perform the diadem test for drowning.
The head injury could have been caused accidentally, and the death could be due to dry drowning, where water does not enter lungs but laryngeal spasm occurs.
The prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Judgment Excerpts
Criminal Appeal No.221/2013 is filed by appellant i.e. original accused no.1 – Sevak Ramrao Rathod, and Criminal Appeal No.209/2013 is filed by appellant nos.1 to 3, i.e. original accused nos.2 to 4.
It was revealed that, the death of Komal was due to intracraneal hemorrhage due to head injury, and accordingly, viscera was preserved.
The accused in furtherance of their common intention had dealt blow on the head of Komal and murdered her. Thereafter, the dead body was thrown in the well so as to destroy and cause disappearance of the evidence.
Procedural History
Accidental Death Case No. 38/2011 registered under Section 174 CrPC on 14.07.2011. FIR lodged by father on 15.07.2011; Crime No. 61/2011 registered for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 302, 201 read with 34 IPC. Investigation completed; chargesheet filed. Case committed to Sessions Court. Sessions Trial No. 63 of 2011 conducted by Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli. Conviction order passed on 20.04.2013. Criminal Appeals No. 221/2013 and No. 209/2013 filed before High Court. Appeals heard together; judgment reserved on 30.03.2017 and pronounced on 11.04.2017.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498A, 304B, 302, 201, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 174
