LAXMAN ANJALI DHUNDALE AND ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 768 · Decided: 04-04-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
LAXMAN ANJALI DHUNDALE AND.ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 4, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
--'<, 
Penal Code, 1860:· 
'ff 
c 
ss. 302134 and 498-A/34-Death of a married woman owing to injuries-
Husband of deceased earlier demanding money from her par,ents for 
construction of house-Medical evidence indicating homicide-Husband of 
deceased and his parents convicted by trial couri and sentenced-High 
Court affirming the order-Appeal by parents of husband-Held, there is no 
credible evidence, direct or circumstantial, that there was meeting of minds 
D of all accused persons to commit the offences-Charge u!s 34 has not been 
established-Appellants given benefit of doubt-Ingredients of s. 34-
~ 
Explained. 
~ 
Accused no. I, husband of the deceased, and his parents, accused nos. 2 
and 3, were prosecuted under sections 302/34 and 498-A/34 IPC. The 
E prosecution case was that accused no. 1 demanded ornaments of his wife for 
purpose of construction of a new house. The wife told her parents and they 
paid Rs. 5,000/- to him and told that Rs. 5,000/- they would within 15 days. 
After a few days the victim told her parents that her husband was harassing 
her to get the balance amount. The following day the parents of the victim 
F were informed that she had fallen into a well. When they reached the village 
they were told that the victim had gone to the well to draw water and 
·'II' 
) 
accidentally slipped into the well and -died. The trial court convicted all the 
three accused of the offences charged and sentenced them to imprisonment 
for life. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. The parents 
of accused no. 1, namely, accused nos. 2 and 3, filed the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. From the medical evidence on record as well as the other 
~ 
evidence, it appears that the deceased was murdered. From a persual of the 
post-mortem report it cannot be said that it was a case of suicide, rather it 
H 
768 
I r-
... 
LAXMAN ANJALI DHUNDALE v. STA TEOF MAHARASHTRA [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.] 769 
--
was a case of homicide. This is further corroborated by the fact that the s~t A 
'f'anchnama (Ex.25) shows that the well in question was not in use as it did 
not have bucket, rope or chain to fetch the water and there was not even 
sufficient water. [Para 8) [771-B-D) 
1.2. However, this is a case of circumstantial evidence and the chain of 
I 
B 
links connecting accused nos. 2 and 3 to the offences is not established beyond 
A 
reasonable doubt There is no credible evidence showing that accused nos. ~ 
,.. 
and 3 caused death of the deceased or they had any common intention along 
with their son to cause death of the deceased. There is no doubt evidence that 
accused no.1 demanded ornaments from his wife for selling the same for the 
I 
purpose of purchasing tins and wooden ballies for making a roof of his house, c 
but from this, guilt of the appellants who are the parents of accused no.1, is 
-
not proved beyond reasonable doubt [Para 9) [771-D-F] 
2.1. To establish the common intention of several persons to attract 
section 34 IPC, the two fundamental facts have to be established, namely, (i) 
common intention and (ii) participation of the accused in commission of the D 
f 
offence. In the present case, neither common intention nor participation of 
.. 
the appellants in the commission of the offences has been established beyond 
reasonable doubt. Hence, the charge under section 34 IPC has not been, 
established. Therefore, benefit of doubt has to be given to the appellants. 
[Paras 11, 12 and 13) [772-E-G] , E 
Hamlet v. State of Kera/a, [2003) 10 SCC 108, relied on. 
Anil Sharma v. State of Jharkhand, [2004] S SCC 679 and Mahbub Shah 
v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118, referred to. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 481 of F 
2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.03.2006 of the Bombay High 
Court Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Crl. A. No. 199/2002. 
Hrishikesh Baruah and Jagjit Singh Chhabra for the Appellants. 
G 
Ravindra Keshvrao Adsure for the Respondent. 
/ 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
-
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. Leave granted. 
H 
I 
i 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
.. 
~ 
A 
2. This appeal has been directed against the impugned judgment and 
order dated 20.3.2006 of the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench in Criminal 
Appeal No. 199 of 2002. 
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.