Ramnath Valiba Sanap v. The State Of Maharashtra

2024:BHC-AS:10635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION REVISION APPLICATION NO. 464 OF 2007 RAMNATH VALIBA SANAP ..APPLICANT VS.

1] THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2] DEONATH MURLIDHAR GHUGE 3] MRS. SANGEETA SUNIL SANAP ..RESPONDENTS ------------ Adv. Sunita S. Warang a/w Adv. Satish R. Mishra for the Applicant.

Adv. M.A. Choudhari for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr. S.A. Karmakar, APP for the State.

------------ CORAM : M. S. KARNIK, J.

DATE : MARCH 05, 2024 JUDGMENT:

1.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned APP for the State and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3. 2.

By this revision, the applicant challenges the order dated 27/06/2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay, discharging respondent Nos. 2 and 3 herein under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC" for short). 3.

The applicant is the father of the deceased Sangita.

The applicant's daughter Sangita married Mangesh at Nashik on 20/12/1996. It is alleged that the husband of the deceased and her in-laws subjected her to harassment and cruelty on the demand for dowry. Respondent No.2- Deonath M. Ghuge is the father-in-law of the deceased Sangita's brother. Respondent No.3- Sangeeta Sunil Sanap is the wife of the brother of the deceased and daughter of respondent No.2. It is alleged that because of the harassment of her inlaws, Sangita attempted to commit suicide on 05/12/2004. The dying declaration of the deceased Sangita was recorded on 05/12/2004. Sangita succumbed to the injuries. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that this is not a fit case for discharge as there are specific allegations against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the dying declaration of the deceased and the matter should go for trial.

4.

The statements of the witnesses in the charge-sheet do not record any accusations against the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3. The material against the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3 is in the form of the dying declaration of the deceased Sangita. A perusal of the dying declaration reveals that due to some proceedings pending in the Civil Court on

account of family dispute, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were instigating Sangita's father-in-law and mother-in-law which led to the harassment. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 were not residing with the deceased at her matrimonial home. The allegations against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are vague and general in nature.

5.

In my opinion, the allegations being vague are not sufficient to attract the ingredients of Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC against respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Even if the allegations are taken at their face value, except for the vague statement that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were instigating the in-laws of the deceased Sangita who harassed her on account of the pending case involving their family, there are no materials against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to satisfy the ingredients of the alleged offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

6.

I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court.

7.

The application is dismissed.

(M. S. KARNIK, J.) Signed by: Darshan Patil Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 05/03/2024 18:57:26