DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
11March, 2021
JUDGES:
R.V. Ghuge, B. U. Debadwar
PARTIES:
State of Maha (Plaintiff)
Vijay Kolhe and Ors. (Respondent)
SUMMARY
The following judgement deals with the controversy related to the demand of dowry and abetment to suicide in the matter related to the death of a mother and her daughter by the in-laws and her husband. Thereafter, the appeal was raised in which it was found that the accused were not liable as there was no concrete evidence to prove the contrary.
AN OVERVIEW
1. The appeal has been directed under Section 378(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; against the judgment and order passed by the learned second Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, whereby acquitted all the five accused for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, Section 304-B and Section 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.
2. Respondent Dattatraya Maruti Kolhe and Jankabai are husband and wife and their son is Vijay Dattatraya Kolhe who married to deceased Jyoti, daughter of Haribhau Laxman Karkhile and Shakuntala Haribhau Karkhile and they were resident of Kadegaon.
3. With the intervention of close relatives of both families, marriage of the deceased Jyoti with Vijay was settled. As per the terms of the settlement, marriage wasto be solemnizedat Kedgaon but later it was shifted to Ramling Temple of Shirur, Pune.
4. Four to five days prior to marriage, Vijay and Dattatraya reached the house of Haribhau and demanded dowry of Rs. 75,000/- and ornaments of five tolas gold with this condition, the marriage of Jyoti would be performed with Vijay otherwise it will not.
5. Haribhau expressed his ability to pay a dowry of Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.75,000/- and gold ornaments of five tolas, at the time of marriage and sought permission to pay the remaining balance dowry amount after marriage, in due course. Accused both agreed to the same and they got married.
6. Matrimonial life of the deceased was normal for about 10 months after marriage. Later, her husband and her father-in-law started insisted her to bring the remaining amount and started cruelty. Meanwhile, she gave birth to her daughter Kranti.
7. Jyoti reminded his father for arranging the remaining amount of dowry but he convinced her that he will soon arrange the money and by the time he along with Jyoti and grand-daughter Kranti they left to Dattatraya house to assure him regarding the remaining money and requested not to harass or ill-treat her. On 06-09-1999, it was informed Haribhau that his grand-daughter was missing. After investigation, it was later found that they both were dead and their dead bodies were found in the decomposed condition under the shrubs in the Ghod river.
8. After committal of the case, learned second Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar framed charges, conducted trial when accused pleaded not guilty, and after trial, acquitted all the accused. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of acquittal, after seeking leave, State has preferred the present appeal.
IMPORTANT PROVISION
Constitution of India:
- Section 498-Aof the Indian Penal Code.
- Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
- Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
ISSUES
The major issue concerned in this case-
• Whether Jyoti committed suicide, along with tender-aged daughter Kranti, by drowning into the Ghodriver?
• Whether, soon before the death, Jyoti was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with the demand for dowry?
• Whether, by their willful conduct, the accused had driven Jyoti to commit suicide along with daughter Kranti.
ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT
1. Prosecution vehemently argued that they both died of unnatural death, only after one and a half year of hermarriage.
2. The defendant claimed that Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge failed to appreciate the evidence on record inproper perspective and by giving undue importance to minor omissions and contradictionsdiscarded material evidence and failed in considering provisions of Sections 113-A and 113-B of the Evidence Act and consequently acquitted all the five accused.
3. The prosecution has proved only that Jyoti committed suicide within 7 years of marriage, however, failed to prove, by adducingcogent evidence, that accused had subjected the deceased Jyoti to cruelty on account of the remaining dowry amount. Therefore, the ratio led down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court would not support the prosecution to hold the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 304-Band 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
CONCLUSION
The Hon’ble Court observed that after re-appreciating the evidence, we do not find that the view taken by the learned Additional Sessions Judge is incorrect or improbable. Therefore, we concur with his view.Therefore, this appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
