CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.473 OF 2001

Case Note & Summary

The present appeal arose from the judgment and order dated 27.07.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Latur in Sessions Case No.123/1997, acquitting the five accused (respondents) of offences under Sections 498A, 306, and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The State of Maharashtra, being aggrieved, preferred the present criminal appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad. During the pendency of the appeal, accused no. 2 died, leading to abatement of proceedings against him. The prosecution’s case, as set out in the FIR lodged by PW1 Vitthal Raut, father of the deceased Shobha, was that Shobha was married to accused no. 1 Bhagirath on 27.05.1994. After an initial period of four to five months of proper treatment, the accused began harassing her for money, demanding Rs.5,000 to start a shop. Despite a sum of Rs.5,000 being provided by her brother Avinash (PW5) in 1995, the harassment continued. Approximately one year before the incident, Shobha was allegedly beaten by her in-laws and brought to her parental home in Mategaon. While staying there, accused no. 1 would visit intermittently, and the couple cohabitated. Three months prior to the incident, accused no. 1 assured to maintain her properly, and she was sent back to the matrimonial home at Wanjarkheda. On 18.04.1997, Avinash (PW5) visited to check on her; she did not complain but appeared to be living under pressure. Two days later, on 20.04.1997, the informant received news that the accused had murdered Shobha by hanging. Upon reaching the village, they found her dead body. The police were informed, and an accidental death case (No.9/1997 under Section 174 CrPC) was registered. Investigation led to the recording of the FIR under Sections 498A and 302 read with 34 IPC. Postmortem examination by Dr. Preeti Badade (PW6) revealed death due to asphyxia as a result of hanging. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial court framed charges under Sections 498A, 302, and alternatively 306 read with 34 IPC; the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In their defence, they stated that the deceased had gynaecological problems and could not bear children, which caused her annoyance, and they never subjected her to cruelty. They examined one defence witness. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence of eight prosecution witnesses, found that the prosecution had failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted all accused. In the appeal, the State contended that the death occurred within seven years of marriage, and the testimonies of PWs 1, 3, and 5 established cruelty and unlawful demand; coupled with the medical evidence of asphyxia due to hanging, the accused ought to have been convicted under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 IPC. The defence reiterated that the death was suicidal and attributed to the deceased’s medical condition. The High Court, before examining the evidence, considered the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, as summarised in Murlidhar alias Gidda v. State of Karnataka (2014) and a long line of Supreme Court decisions. It noted that the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is strengthened by the acquittal; the appellate court is generally loath to disturb findings of fact recorded by the trial court, which had the advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses; and interference is justified only if the trial court’s view is unreasonable or palpably wrong, not merely because a different view is possible. The court then proceeded to examine whether the death was homicidal or suicidal, as this was central to the case. The provided portion of the judgment, however, breaks off in the midst of the court’s analysis, and the final decision and reasoning on the merits are not available. Therefore, the outcome of the appeal cannot be determined from the text provided.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Law Points