P. W. 1 has deposed before the Court in her substantive evidence that
her husband i.e. present appellant had refused to consummate the marriage
and was insisting upon her to have sexual relations with three other persons.
There is omission as far as the same is condition precedent for consummation
of marriage. The allegation itself would be mental harassment to the wife.
Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code reads thus:
“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
be liable to fine.
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
Hence, it can be safely inferred that accused/appellant has rather
committed offence punishable under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 465 OF 1994
Bhaskar Janardhan Mane
R/o Wadaje, Tal. South Solapur.
.....Appellant
V/s.
The State of Maharashtra
Appellant herein is convicted for offence punishable under section 498
CORAM : SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.
DATED : OCTOBER 30, 2014
(A) of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for
one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/- i.d. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
further period of three months in Sessions Case No. 93/1994 by 4 th Additional
Sessions Judge, Solapur vide Judgment and Order dated 30/07/1994.
Appellant herein was charged for offences punishable under sections 323, 504
& 328 of Indian Penal Code, however, he is acquitted for the said charges.
Being aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction, appellant has preferred this
2)
appeal.
Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are
as follows.
3)
Appellant was married to Laxmibai on 18/05/1993. After marriage,
Laxmibai had been to her matrimonial home at Wadaje. Laxmibai resided in
her matrimonial home, initially for 15 days and thereafter, had returned to her
maternal house for a short period. That Laxmibai was crippled by one leg and
she was polio stricken. She happened to be a distant relative of the present
appellant and both the family members were well acquainted with each other.
It is alleged that on 07/02/1994, Laxmibai approached the police station and
lodged the report that her marriage with the present appellant was not
consummated. There used to be intermittent quarrels between the couple. She
used to visit her maternal house quite often. She had been to her maternal
house on the occasion of Sankrant festival. After she returned to matrimonial
house, her husband had refused to consummate the marriage. It is alleged that
he was insisting upon her to sleep with Chandrakant Chivari, Vithal Chivari &
Satyawan Dudhal. Complainant was annoyed with the said gesture of her
husband. She had informed her father Limbaji Bansode about the same. A
discordant note had struck between her and her in-laws. She has further
alleged that on 06/02/1994 at about 7.00 pm, she was sleeping outside her hut
and at that time, her husband i.e. present appellant insisted upon her to go and
sleep with Vithal Dudhal. She flatly refused to oblige. At that juncture, her
husband had forcibly administered some spurious substance into her mouth.
According to her, it was a poisonous substance. She felt giddy and was
feeling uneasy. She raised hue and cry. Upon hearing cries, her father-in-law,
brother-in-law and other people assembled and had taken her to Civil
Hospital. She was admitted in the Civil Hospital where, she vomited. She has
further stated that since she refused to sleep with other persons, her husband
had administered poison to her. On the basis of her report, crime no. 18/1994
was registered at Taluka Police Station, Solapur for offence punishable under
section 328, 498 (A), 509 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. Accused was arrested
on 07/02/1994. Investigation was completed and charge-sheet was filed on
31/03/1994. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered
as Sessions Case No. 93/1994. The prosecution has examined 10 witnesses to
4)
bring home the guilt of the accused.
P. W. 1 is the complainant Laxmibai. She has deposed before the Court
in consonance with the F.I.R. lodged by her. She has proved the contents of
the F.I.R. which is at exhibit 9. It is elicited in the cross-examination that her
father-in-law's mother was sister of her maternal grandmother. That the
matrimonial house was located in slum area at Wadaje and that there are about
25-30 huts adjoining to her house. According to her, police had recorded her
statement on two occasions i.e. at about 5.00 am on 07/02/2014 and then in
the midnight. She has admitted that she had not disclosed to the police that
she had requested her husband to sleep with her or that he had told her that he
would sleep with her only if, she would go to sleep with other three persons.
The reason assigned for not stating the same is that she did not understand the
procedure properly. There are inherent omissions in her cross-examination
which pertains to the offence punishable under section 323 & 328 of Indian
Penal Code, however, appellant is acquitted of the said charges and there
being no appeal against acquittal, the said contentions need not be taken into
consideration. It is apparent on the face of record that there is no allegation of
5)
P. W. 2 Vithal Chivari is declared hostile. Similarly, P. W. 3
Chandrakant Chivari is also declared hostile.
6)
assault.
P. W. 4 Satyawan Dudhal is the same person, the accused had requested
his wife to sleep with. He has deposed before the Court that he does not know
anything about the incident. He has stated before the Court that about six
months prior to lodging F.I.R. by Laxmibai, Bhaskar had met him in the
Gaothan and had told him that his wife Laxmibai had some work with him
and therefore, he had requested him to accompany him to the house, however,
P. W. 4 had not obliged Bhaskar i.e. present appellant.
7)
P. W. 5 Manohar Mane had taken Laxmibai to General Hospital,
Solapur. He had no dialogue with Laxmibai while in transit. He has been
declared hostile.
8)
P. W. 6 Limbaji Bansode is the father of Laxmibai. He has specifically
deposed before the Court that Laxmibai had sent messages to him that her
husband and mother-in-law were ill treating her. Hence, he was constrained to
take Laxmibai to his house. P. W. 1 had specifically disclosed to her father
about the ill-treatment meted out to her. He has narrated about the incident
dated 06/02/1994 wherein, the accused had administered poison to her. He has
substantiated the allegations in respect of ill-treatment meted out to his
P. W. 7 Shripati Lengare had deposed before the Court that on
9)
daughter.
05/02/1994, at about 3.00 am, Laxmibai had been to his house. She disclosed
to him that there was a quarrel between her and her husband. Upon inquiry,
she had told him that her husband was insisting upon her to have sexual
relations with P. W. 2, 3 & 4 and he had also threatened her that if she did not
oblige, he would throw her in the well. After sometime, her father-in-law
Janardan had come to the house of P. W. 7 and had taken away Laxmibai. He
had assured P. W. 7 that he would drop Laxmibai to her parents' house. He
had also been to Civil Hospital, Solapur to meet Laxmibai.
P. W. 8 Ambadas Kamble is A.S.I. had received information about
10)
lodging of the report. He had recorded the statement of Laxmibai in the
hospital after obtaining the opinion of the doctor. He had registered crime no.
18/1994. He had prepared the F.I.R. and obtained thumb impression of
Laxmibai. He had not made any inquiries with the relatives of Laxmibai.
P. W. 9 Rohidas Kamble had carried out further investigation. He had
11)
recorded supplementary statement of P. W. 1 and had arrested the
accused/appellant. He had filed charge-sheet which is at Exhibit 26. He has
proved the omissions and contradictions of the witnesses.
12)
P. W. 10 Laxman Zodphule is the Head Constable. He has deposed
before the Court that on 07/02/1994, at about 12.45 am, he had received
telephonic message from constable Korde at General Hospital Solapur that
Laxmibai is admitted in the hospital due to administration of poison. He had
recorded the station diary entry to that effect.
13)
P. W. 1 has deposed before the Court in her substantive evidence that
her husband i.e. present appellant had refused to consummate the marriage
and was insisting upon her to have sexual relations with three other persons.
There is omission as far as the same is condition precedent for consummation
of marriage. The allegation itself would be mental harassment to the wife.
14)
Section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code reads thus:
“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
be liable to fine.
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also
Explanation: For the purposes of this section, "cruelty" means
(a) Any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive
the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman;
or
(b) Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
15)
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such demand.”
Hence, it can be safely inferred that accused/appellant has rather
committed offence punishable under section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code.
16)
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was in custody
from 07/02/1994 to 17/04/1994. It is submitted that the appeal is being heard
17)
after 20 years, and therefore, leniency should be shown to the appellant.
For the above mentioned observations and taking into consideration the
said submission, following order.
ORDER
Appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under
(i)
section 498 (A) of Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 93/1994 by
4th Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur vide Judgment and Order dated
30/07/1994 is maintained, however, he is sentenced to the period
already undergone.
(iii) Sentence of fine is maintained.
(iv) Bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.
Appeal stands disposed of.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J.)
No comments:
Post a Comment