The State Of Maharashtra v. Tukaram Ananda Katkar And Others
2023:BHC-AUG:21673-DB -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL BY STATE NO.205 OF 2019 The State of Maharashtra, Through Police Station Wadodbazar, Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad.
...Applicant/Appellant
Versus
1.
Tukaram Ananda Katkar Age: 30 Yrs., Occ.:Agriculture, R/o: Umrawati, Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad.
2.
Santosh Ananda Katkar Age: 36 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
3.
Ananda Gayanrao Katkar Age: 65 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
4.
Ashok Ananda Katkar Age: 34 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
5.
Bhagubai Ashok Katkar Age: 26 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
6.
Rukhmanbai Raosaheb Katkar Age: 45 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
7.
Padmabai Santosh Katkar Age: 29 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
8.
Leelabai Saluba Khillare Age: 25 yrs., Occ.: Agri., R/o: Aland, Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad
-29.
Shantabai Ratan Katkar Age: 40 yrs., Occ.: Agri., R/o: Umrawati, Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad.
10.
Laxmibai Ananda Katkar Age: 60 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
11.
Ratan Ananda Katkar Age: 45 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
12.
Raosaheb Ananda Katkar Age: 48 yrs., Occ. & R/o: As above.
... Respondents.
[Ori. Accused.] . . .
Mr. A. M. Phule, APP for Applicant - State . . .
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, JJ.
DATED : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2023 ORDER (PER ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) :
1.
Instant leave application is directed against judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge-7, Aurangabad dated 22.03.2019, by which respondent nos. 1 to 12 are acquitted from chargeS under sections 498A, 304B, 504 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Principal prayer is leave to file appeal against above judgment.
2.
According to learned APP, respondent no.1 Tukaram was married to Renuka- daughter of informant in 2006. That, for
-3two years she was treated well, but thereafter, husband, in-laws and all accused persons were demanding Rs.3 Lakhs for purchase of tractor. On non fulfillment of said demand, deceased was maltreated. They subjected her to mental cruelty by taunting for not bearing child. All accused kept her starved. Deceased Renuka reported ill-treatment meted out to her. Informant and family members gave understanding to accused, but they did not mend their ways. On 01.11.2012, deceased was found in the well. Viscera examination revealed insecticide. Death was unnatural and there was prompt lodgement of report. Investigation revealed complicity of accused and were therefore duly charge-sheeted. That, on going through the evidence, it is seen that, PW1 Sakharam, PW2 Raibhan and PW3 Karbhari are crucial witnesses, PW4 Machindra is the Police Officer and PW5 Dr. Zine is the autopsy doctor. That, evidence has not been properly appreciated. No proper and sufficient reasons are assigned by learned trial Judge. Hence, he prays for leave.
3.
Let us first get confirmed about mode and manner of death met by deceased Renuka. PW5 Dr. Zine, who conducted autopsy. After conducting PM preserved the opinion for viscera report and on receipt of the same, according to him, viscera revealed detected carbamate insecticide carbofuran, which is
-4according to him, is fatal and so he opined cause of death as carbamate insecticide carbofuran poisoning with drowning. Though, death of Renuka is shown to be unnatural, but, nothing beyond that as to whether it was accidental, suicidal or homicidal.
4.
Evidence of father PW1 Sakharam and brother PW2 Raibhan is only consistent about agreement to give Rs. 3.51 lakhs as dowry and complying with only Rs.51,000/- and supplying articles. They speak about good treatment for two years, but thereafter, according to them, whenever deceased came, she spoke about harassment on account of remaining money. Father (PW1) speaks of daughter being kept starved and taunting for not bearing child and using insulting language. PW2 Raibhan brother merely speaks of abuse and beating to his sister and all accused ill-treating her. His evidence is ambiguous as to what role each of the accused played. He is also silent about mode and nature of ill-treatment and when such incidents took place. Even evidence of father is not clear as to when ill-treatment was made. In our opinion, such instances are essential when there is charge of commission of offence under section 304B of IPC which contemplates maltreatment in proximity to death. This aspect is precisely found to be missing in the evidence.
-5PW3 Karbhari claims that he was party to the meeting to give understanding to the accused. However, neither PW1 Sakharam, PW2 Raibhan nor PW3 Karbhari have narrated as to when said meeting took place. Therefore, for want of clear evidence, evidence of prosecution cannot be accepted, and therefore, learned trial Judge was left with no choice, but to acquit the accused.
5.
In our view, learned trial Judge has committed no error in refusing to accept the case of prosecution. We do not find any merit in the application as the evidence gathered and relied by prosecution in trial court is apparently weak in nature, therefore, no fruitful purpose would be served by granting leave. Consequently, we proceed to pass following order :-
ORDER
The application is hereby rejected.
(ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.) (SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J.) Tandale