Bombay High Court
Shrinivas Madhav Panchal vs State Of Maha on 12 March, 2025
2025:BHC-AUG:7145
{1} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
Shrinivas Madhav Panchal
Age: 22 years, Occu.: Agril.,
R/o. Kaladgaon, Tq.Ardhapur,
Dist.Nanded. ....Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra
through Ardhapur Police Station. .....Respondent
.....
Advocate for Appellant : Mr.A.M.Gaikwad
APP for Respondent : Mr.V.M.Chate
.....
CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
RESERVED ON : 17 FEBRUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12 MARCH, 2025
JUDGMENT :
–
1. Appellant convict in Sessions Case No.16 of 2001 hereby takes
exception to judgment and order dated 02-12-2003 passed by
learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded, recording the
guilt of the appellant for offence under Sections 498-A and 304-B of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF
2. In nutshell, case of prosecution in trial Court is that deceased
Shakuntala, daughter of informant, was married to present appellant
{2} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
six months prior to her death. Out of agreed Rs.30,000/- dowry,
Rs.20,000/- was paid and Rs.10,000/- had remained. For remaining
Rs.10,000/-, it is alleged that there was cruelty by husband and in-
laws. Finally, Shakuntala committed suicide by jumping in the well.
Holding husband and in-laws responsible, father PW1 Laxman lodged
report in consequence to which crime was registered, investigated
and on gathering sufficient evidence, PW7 Molvane, API,
chargesheeted accused.
After committal of case, learned Adhoc Additional Sessions
Judge, Nanded, conducted trial vide Sessions Case 16 of 2001 against
six accused persons including present appellant. By judgment and
order dated 02-12-2003, accused nos.2 to 6 were acquitted from all
charges and accused no.1 husband (appellant) alone was held guilty
for offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC,
however, he was acquitted of charge under Section 306 of the IPC.
SUBMISSIONS
On behalf of appellant :
3. Learned counsel for appellant while criticizing the judgment,
took this court through entire evidence of all seven prosecution
witnesses. According to him, there are general, omnibus allegations
{3} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
regarding demand and ill-treatment. According to him, there is no
independent reliable evidence at the first count about dowry being
agreed and part amount being paid. He further submitted that
parents i.e. PW1 Laxman (father) and PW4 Godavaribai (mother) as
well as PW6 Ramrao, brother of deceased, are not consistent or
lending support to each other. He further pointed out that
prosecution relying on independent witness, but he has hearsay
information. That cross-examination of these witnesses renders their
substantive evidence doubtful. According to learned counsel, going
by circumstances at the well, there is possibility of accidental fall.
That, in proximity to death, there is no allegation of demand, ill-
treatment, harassment either physical or mental. He pointed out
that initially AD was registered and subsequently, out of annoyance,
there is belated false implication. Lastly, he submitted that on same
set of evidence, accused nos.2 to 6 are acquitted, but surprisingly
appellant husband alone is held guilty. Thus, according to him, this
is against settled legal principles and on this court, he seeks reliance
on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Shaukat
Ali v. State of Gujarat, AIR 2023 SC 4444 . Resultantly, he seeks
indulgence by setting aside the impugned judgment by allowing the
appeal.
{4} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
On behalf of State :
4. While opposing the above submissions, learned APP submitted
that barely after six months of marriage, on account of remaining
Rs.10,000/- dowry, deceased was subjected to cruelty and
harassment. That, when she came for festivals, she reported to her
parents and brother. That, they have accordingly deposed to that
extent. According to learned APP, apart from immediate relatives,
there is evidence of PW5 Deorao, independent witness, who has
supported prosecution version. That, learned trial Court has invoked
presumptions available under law. According to him, findings and
conclusion of the learned trial Court being in consonance with
evidence, he prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.
In support of his submissions, learned APP placed reliance on
the decisions in Ranjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 12 SCC 333;
Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477 .
EVIDENCE IN TRIAL COURT
5. In support of its case, prosecution has adduced evidence of in
all seven witnesses. Sum and substance of their evidence is as
under :
PW1 Laxman Namdeo Panchal is father of deceased. At
{5} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003exh.40, he deposed as under :
“01. Madhav and Balaji are my sons. Vandana is my daughter. My
daughter Shakuntala was married with accused Shrinivas of
Kaladgaon about 6 months before her death. It was decided to pay
Rs.30,000/- as dowry. The amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid and the
remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- was to be paid. The marriage was
celebrated at Ekdara. Shakuntala was living with her husband who
was joint with his parents and brother.
02. I had gone to her house to bring her for Panchami. Shakuntala
told me that her husband, parents-in law, brother, on Shivanand
and Ananda harassed her over non-payment of remaining dowery
amount. She told that she was beaten. She was taken back by her
father-in-law after two days.
03. I had again gone to take her for Pitra. She did accompany me.
She asked me to pay the remaining amount of dowery of
Rs.10,000/- . She is being beaten. I told her husband and parents-
in-law that time that I shall pay the amount.
They went back with Shakuntala after a day.
04. Bhojane from our village told me that he received a telephonic
message from Kaladgaon by Ananda that your daughter fell in well.
I along with my relations went to Kaladgaon that evening. We went
to a well situated in the field of one Kokate. Bhojane informed me
at 7.30 p.m. I could not see inside the well due to dark. I went to
P.S. Ardhapur and lodged the report. The report was reduced into
writing. It bears my signature, the contents are correct. It is Exhibit-
41. We went back to our village Ekdara.
05. On next day at 7 a.m., I again went to vilage Kaladgaon, near
{6} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003the well. The dead body was taken out of the well. She was
cremated at our village Ekdara. Witness identified all the accused
before Court.
06. On Tuesday a day before this incident I had taken my she
buffalo to Basmat Bazar to raise the amount for dowry by selling it.
It was not sold.”
PW2 Santoshi w/o Tukaram Panchal is cousin of deceased. At
exh.42, she deposed as under :
“Shakuntala was my cousin. My father Narhari and uncle Laxman
reside in same Wada at Ekdara. Shakuntala was married six
months before her death to Shrinivas. I met Shakuntala at the time
of Pitra at Ekdara. I had gone to Ekdara for delivery. On inquiry by
me Shakuntala told me that her husband and parents-in-law ill-treat
and beat her. She was weeping. She told that she was harassed for
non-payment of remaining amount of Rs.10,000/- as a dowry.”
PW3 Marotrao Hanmantrao Bhojane is acquaintance of father
of deceased. At exh.43, he deposed as under :
“I had a field at Ekdara. I know Laxman Panchal of Ekdara.
Shakuntala was married to one Shrinivas of Kaladgaon. I have a
telephone connection bearing no.78229 in my house at Ekdara. On
18-10-2001 I was present at my house in Ekdara during evening
period. I received a telephone call from Kaladgoan to inform
Laxman that his daughter went out at 10 a.m. and was found in a
well at 5 p.m. The informant introduced him as the cousin-father-
in-law. I informed Laxman about the message.
{7} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
02. We went to Kaladgaon by jeep. We went to the well. We
could not see anything inside it. Father of Shakuntala went to
Ardhapur and we returned to village.
PW4 Godavaribai w/o Laxman Panchal is mother of deceased.
She deposed at exh.44 as under :
01. My daughter Shakuntala was married to Shrinivas of
Kaladgaon six months before her death. We had agreed to pay
Rs.30,000/- as dowry and had paid Rs 20,000/-. Rs.10,000/- has
remained to be paid. Shakuntala was living with her husband,
brother-in-law and parents-in-law.
02. Shakuntala had come after Aratani paratani at Panchami.
Laxman had gone to bring her. Shakuntala told me that, her
husband, brother-in-law, parents-in-law do not treat her properly.
Her father-in-law had come to take her back. We told Madhav that
we shall pay the amount and do not ill-treat her. She went back
with Madhav.
03 Shakuntala was again brought by my husband for a Pitra.
Shakuntala told me that her husband, brother–in-law, mother-in-
law beat and ill-treat her. She told that she was ill-treated for
remaining amount of dowry. Her husband and mother-in-law had
then come to us. We told Shakuntala’s husband and mother-in-law
that we shall sell the she buffalo and make the payments.
Shakuntala went back with her mother-in-law. We received a
telephonic message after 25 days through Bhojane that Shakuntala
fell in the well and died. We received the message at about 7 to
7.30 p.m.”
{8} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
PW5 Deorao Sainaji Arsule is neighbour of father of deceased.
At exh.51, he deposed as under :
“01. House of Laxman Panchal is situated near to my house at
village Ekdara. Shakuntala, daughter of Laxman, was married to
Shrinivas about 2/3 months before her death. It was agreed to pay
Rs.30,000/- by Laxman to Shrinivas. Rs.20,000/- were paid. I
learnt through Laxman that his daughter was ill-treated for non-
payment of remaining dowery amount. I asked Laxman to make
some arrangement and make the payment as she is harassed,
Laxman said that he shall sell the she buffalo with him to raise the
amount. Laxman had taken the buffalo to Vasmat market a day
before incident. Son of Laxman had accompanied him. The buffalo
was not sold that day.
02. In response to the cries at the house of Laxman, I went to
him and learnt that there was a message about death of Shakuntala.
I had gone to village Kaladgaon with Laxman and others. We went
to the well with the help of torch light. We did not see the dead
body. I accompanied Laxman to Police Station from Bhokar Phata.
Laxman went inside the Police Station and lodged the report. We
went back to Ekdara.
03. We went to Kaladgaon next day morning. The dead body
was taken out of the well. Panchanamas were drawn. The dead
body was taken to Govt. Hospital, Nanded, and then therefrom to
Ekdara for cremation.
04. I was present during the talks for settlement of the
{9} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003marriage.”
PW6 Ramrao Namdeo Panchal is brother of informant. At
exh.52, he deposed as under :
01. Laxman is my brother. We have houses in the same premises
(Wada). Shakuntala daughter of Laxman was married to Shrinivas
of Kaladgaon about 5 months before her death. It was agreed to pay
Rs.30,000/- was dowry and the amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid by
Laxman. Shakuntala had come to our village for Panchami after her
marriage. Shakuntala told me that her husband, parents-in-law and
brother-in-law harassed her. She told that she was beaten. The
father-in-law of Shakuntala had come to take her back. We asked
Madhav not to harass her and told that we would pay the amount.
02. She had again come for Pitra. She told that her husband,
brother-in-law, father-in-law harassed her and beat her. She told
that Anandrao and Shivanand during their visits to the field at
Kaladgaon did harass her. Shrinivas and his mother had come for
Pitra. I told Shrinivas and his mother that we shall pay the amount
and do not harass her.
03. Three weeks after Pitra, Bhojane told us that Shakuntala died
in the well as per the message received. It may be 7 to 7.30 P.M.
We went to Kaladgaon near the well. We could not see the dead
body inside the well. It was dark. We went back to Ekdara. I know
accused Shivanand and Anand. I know all the accused persons.”
{10} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
ANALYSIS
Charge under Section 498-A IPC :
6. As regards charge under Section 498-A is concerned, as to
what actually constitutes cruelty has been lucidly and succinctly dealt
in the landmark cases of State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal
[(1994) 1 SCC 73], Giridhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra
(2002) 5 SCC 177; State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao
(2008) 15 SCC 582/[2008] 14 S.C. R. 1170; Bhaskar Lal Sharma v.
Monica (2009) 10 SCC 604 G. V. Siddaramesh v. State of Karnataka
(2010) 3 SCC 152 and Gurnaib Singh v. State of Punjab (2013) 7
SCC 108; K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana (2018) 14 SCC
452. Relevant observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of Manju Ram Kalita v. State of Assam (2009) SCC 330 are borrowed
and quoted below :
“13. The provisions of Section 498A IPC read as under :
“498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty. – Whoever, being the
husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation. – For the purposes of this section
`cruelty’ means –
{11} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
(a) any wilful 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;
(b) harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her to 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.”
Cruelty has been defined by the explanation added to
the Section itself. The basic ingredients of Section 498A I.P.C.
are cruelty and harassment.
14. In the instant case, as the allegation of demand of
dowry is not there, we are not concerned with clause (b) of
the explanation. The elements of cruelty so far as clause (a) is
concerned, have been classified as follows :
(i) any `wilful’ conduct which is of such a nature as is likely
to drive the woman to commit suicide; or
(ii) any `wilful’ conduct which is likely to cause grave injury
to the woman; or
(iii) any `wilful’ act which is likely to cause danger to life,
limb or health, whether physical or mental of the woman.
15. In S. Hanumantha Rao v. S. Ramani, AIR 1999 SC
1318, this Court considered the meaning of cruelty in the
context of the provisions under Section13 of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955 and observed that :
“8. …. mental cruelty broadly means, when either
party causes mental pain, agony or suffering of such
a magnitude that it severs the bond between the
wife and husband and as a result of which it
{12} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003becomes impossible for the party who has suffered
to live with the other party. In other words, the party
who has committed wrong is not expected to live
with the other party.”
16. In V. Bhagat v. Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710, this
court, while dealing with the issue of cruelty in the context of
Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, observed as under :
“16. …….It is not necessary to prove that the mental
cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the
petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard
must be had to the social status, educational level of
the parties, the society they move in, the possibility
or otherwise of the parties ever living together in
case they are already living apart and all other
relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither
possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What
is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in
another case. It is a matter to be determined in each
case having regard to the facts and circumstances of
that case. If it is a case of accusations and
allegations, regard must also be had to the context in
which they were made.
17. ….
18. …. The context and the set up in which the
word `cruelty’ has been used in the section seems to
us, that intention is not necessary element in cruelty.
That word has to be understood in the ordinary
sense of the term in matrimonial affairs. If the
intention to harm, harass or hurt could be inferred
by the nature of the conduct or brutal act
complained of, cruelty could be easily established.
But the absence of intention should not make any
difference in the case, if by ordinary sense in human
affairs, the act complained of could otherwise be
regarded as cruelty. ….”
17. In Mohd. Hoshan v. State of A.P.; (2002) 7 SCC 414,
this Court while dealing with the similar issue held that
{13} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
mental or physical torture should be “continuously” practiced
by the accused on the wife. The Court further observed as
under :
“6. Whether one spouse has been guilty of cruelty
to the other is essentially a question of fact. The
impart of complaints, accusations or taunts on a
person amounting to cruelty depends on various
factors like the sensitivity of the individual victim
concerned, the social background, the environment,
education etc. Further, mental cruelty varies from
person to person depending on the intensity of
sensitivity and the degree of courage or endurance to
withstand such mental cruelty. In other words, each
case has to be decided on its own facts to decide
whether the mental cruelty was established or not.”
18. In Raj Rani v. State (Delhi Administration); AIR 2000
SC 3559, this Court held that while considering the case of
cruelty in the context to the provisions of Section 498A I.P.C.,
the court must examine that allegations/ accusations must be
of a very grave nature and should be proved beyond
reasonable doubt.
19. In Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India, AIR 2005
SC 3100, this Court explained the distinction of cruelty as
provided under Section 306 and 498A IPC observing that
under Section 498A cruelty committed by the husband or his
relation drive woman to commit suicide etc. while under
Section 306 IPC, suicide is abated and intended. Therefore,
there is a basic difference of the intention in application of the
said provisions.
{14} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
20. In Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra,
AIR 2002 SC 2078; this Court held that “cruelty” has to be
understood having a specific statutory meaning provided in
Section 498A I.P.C. and there should be a case of continuous
state of affairs of torture by one to another.
21. “Cruelty” for the purpose of Section 498-A I.P.C. is to be
established in the context of S. 498-A IPC as it may be a
different from other statutory provisions. It is to be
determined/inferred by considering the conduct of the man,
weighing the gravity or seriousness of his acts and to find out
as to whether it is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide etc. It is to be established that the woman has been
subjected to cruelty continuously/persistently or at least in
close proximity of time of lodging the complaint. Petty
quarrels cannot be termed as `cruelty’ to attract the
provisions of Section 498-A IPC. Causing mental torture to the
extent that it becomes unbearable may be termed as cruelty.”
7. Here though there are seven witnesses, precisely prosecution is
placing heavy reliance on evidence of parents i.e. PW1 Laxman
(father) PW4 Godavaribai (mother), PW5 Deorao (neighbour of
informant) and PW Ramrao (brother of informant). Consequently,
there evidence is put to minute re-appreciation.
On doing so, it is noticed that informant father PW1 Laxman,
his wife PW4 Godavaribai and PW6 Ramrao (brother of informant)
are only consistent on the point of Rs.30,000/- dowry to be decided
{15} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
and Rs.20,000/- being paid. But there is no evidence as to when
exactly said part amount was paid.
It is pertinent to note that PW1 Laxman, informant father
merely speaks that when his daughter came for panchami festival
and pitra, she allegedly told that her husband, parents-in-law,
brother-in-law Brahmanand, cousin father-in-law Shivanand and
Anandrao harassing for remaining amount of dowry. Who amongst
six played what role has not been stated. What was the form of
harassment and by whom is also not stated.
In cross-examination, informant PW1 father has admitted that
accused Anandrao and Shivanand resided at Nanded whereas his
daughter Shakuntala and her husband were residing at Kaladgaon,
Tq.Ardhapur, Dist.Nanded. He is unable to state how portion marked
“A” and “B” mentioned below, is appearing in his statement.
Portion “A” – “vkt fnukad 18-10-2000 lk;adkGh lgk oktrk xkokrp vklrkuk
vkeps xkokrhy ekjksrh s/o g.kearjko Hkkstus ;kauh ;sowu lkaxhrys-”
Portion “B” – “i.k vkeps uohup lksbZji.k vlY;kus eh] eqyhps lklw] lkljk ;kauk
o tko;kyk dkgh cksyyks ukgh-”
In paragraph 12 material omissions are brought about he
informing Police about his daughter living with his parents-in-law
{16} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
and brother-in-law; he admitted that his statement is silent about
demand and ill treatment at the hands of accused; he admitted that
he did not report that accused Madhav had come to take Shakuntala
two days back and he informing him about paying amount later on;
he also admitted about not stating that he had taken his buffalo to
sale and raise amount to pay remaining dowry.
Therefore, his such answers in cross-examination creates doubt
about veracity of his substantive evidence on the point of harassment
and demand.
PW2 Santoshi, cousin of deceased, merely stated that when she
came for delivery, on her enquiry, Shakuntala stated that her
husband, parents-in-law ill-treat and beat her for not paying
remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-.
Informant father has not stated about his daughter reporting
demand and ill treatment to PW2 Santoshi.
In cross-examination PW2 Santoshi admitted that her
statement is silent regarding specifically naming husband and in-
laws.
PW4 Godavaribai deposed that her daughter was residing with
parents-in-law, brother-in-law, but as stated above, informant has
admitted that his daughter and husband resided separately. Mother
{17} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
merely speaks that her daughter told that she was not treated
properly. She does not speak of any sort of harassment nor has
specified who amongst six did what. She speaks of mother-in-law
beating and ill-treating Shakuntala, but to this extent, her husband’s
evidence i.e. informant’s evidence is silent.
Paragraph 6 of cross-examination of this witness also shows
that there are material omissions about in-laws living in same house
and brother-in-law also ill-treating deceased.
PW6 Ramrao, uncle of deceased and brother of informant also
deposed about his niece telling him about husband and in-laws
harassing and beating her. His evidence is conspicuously silent about
alleged ill-treatment for remaining amount of Rs.10,000/-. He has
attributed beating to all, but has not given instances nor defined
roles. Even his evidence in paragraph 4 carries material omissions.
CONCLUSION
8. Therefore, on taking survey of above discussed evidence, as
submitted there are general allegations and specific instances, form
of ill-treatment, by which of the accused amongst six did what and
when has not come on record. Deceased allegedly paid visit to
maternal home only on two festivals. She was found dead in the well
on 18-10-2000. In proximity to her death, there is nothing to suggest
{18} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
any sort of harassment ill-treatment, which made her life so
miserable that she was constrained to end up her life.
9. It is noticed that learned trial judge has already acquitted
accused nos.2 to 6 from all charges by analyzing same set of
evidence. Appellant husband is also acquitted of offence under
Section 306 of the IPC, but he is convicted for offence under Sections
498-A and 304-B of the IPC. There is no distinct material to single
him out to hold him responsible for death.
10. The facts in the cases relied by the learned APP and the facts in
the present case are quite distinguishable and hence, cannot be
applied to the case in hand.
11. Learned trial judge has invoked presumptions under Section
113-B of the Evidence Act, but learned trial Judge has not considered
that prior to applying this presumptions, foundational facts are
required to be proved by the prosecution. Here, this court did not
notice said primary burden discharged by the prosecution.
Therefore, case being made out for interference, appeal deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order :
{19} CR APPEAL NO. 814 OF 2003
ORDER
I) Criminal Appeal No.814 of 2003 is allowed.
II) The conviction awarded to appellant in Sessions Case
No.16 of 2001 by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge,
Nanded on 02-12-2003 for the offence punishable under
Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code, stands
quashed and set aside.
III) The appellant stand acquitted of the offence punishable
under Sections 498-A and 304-B of the Indian Penal Code.
IV) The bail bonds of appellant stand cancelled.
V) The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to
appellant after the statutory period.
VI) It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
in respect of disposal of muddemal.
( ABHAY S. WAGHWASE )
JUDGE
SPT
