LexVIJAY versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
· ' [2008) 16 ~.C.R. 890
VIJAY
v. . .
" ,nf~s·rlf1u"
STATE OF·MAHARASH1RA.
bm;";.:11oa,
(Critnihal. Appeal· No. 242 of 2008) ~E noiroti2
.
. .
. ( •
iU·.·: •.,f\\~::\'
DECEMBER 1, 2008
··~
.
~
{ .
' ' ~;;~ -ltj 1
·[DR. ARIJIT .PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUND~KAM
· .. ,, , •,
. SHARMAi JJ.]
> : 1 ,
·' PENAL ·CODE,. 1860:
, · .
'
1 .
IQ ~.!i'~ ("
c·
·:-·
'~.:
~· •
~.,.,.;/,"'··I~\
J
A,~·'.>.,:
,·~)
~'f,
'"
.)(~.,£/\
:·, ss;"fl98:-A;~306;.and 304-B ~f?rosecution.oMwsband, in--
laws and,brother-in:laws of.bride on thei'al/egatio.f)s. of her:.,
death,due to cruelty and.harassment for~dowry ..::.1Conviction :
of mother-:in-law by trial court,... In State's appeal High Court.
also convicting the husband...: HELD:: The letter; whereon
D courts below relied;Jndicates nothing against husband,... High
Court was not justified in upsetting the judgment of trial. court.
'
.
,,
' '·.'
'·
'
'
'' \
'
'
.. In .a trial arising· out of the death of the ~daughter of
PW-1, the tri81"court, on interpretation of a' letter (Ext.'19)
E
stat~d io· h~ve, been written ·by ~h~ ~ecea·~ed indicati_ng
t~e dema_nd of a gold ring, convicted th~ mother-in-law
(A-3) of the deceased while acquitted her husband (A-1),
father-in-law and two brothers-in-law. The trial court
recorded a finding' that the demand of gold ring and
F cruelty to de.ceased on account of non-satisfaction ofthe
demand was proved only against A~3. It was found that
the 'deceased had ·committed suicide. A-3 filed appeal
challenging her conviction and State filed appeal against
order of ~cquittal of other accused. Jhe High Court on
G interpretation of Ext.19 held thaqhe.dem~~d also .related
to Rs.10,000/- by. th~ hu~band, a~d while dismissing the
appeal of A-3, allowed State's appeal as regards A-1.
Meanwhile A-3 died.
H
890
I F
r
t
' •
~-
l
VIJAY v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
891
.
In the appeal filed by A-1, it was contended that the A
;.,!
trial court had rightly held that there was nothing in Ext.
19 to implicate him and the High Court erred in directing
his conviction.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
B
HELD: 1. The letter, on which, both the trial court and
\:"
the High Court have relied to conclude one way or the
..
other refers to the demand by mother-in-law of a gold ring .
There is no reference to the appellant in the letter nor is
there a reference to any demand of money by him. That c
being so, the High Court was not justified in upsetting the
judgment of the trial court. The judgment of the High
Court is set aside and that of the trial court is restored.
[Para 5 and 7] [894-B-E-F]
D
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 242 of 2008.
,..
From the Judgment and final Order dated 28.6.2007 of the
High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur
E
in Criminal Appeal No. 428 of 1993.
Gagan Sanghi and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the
Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
~
1-
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. In this appeal challenge is to
1tfle order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High
Court, Nagpur Bench, allowing the appeal filed by the State.
By the common judgment two appeals were disposed of. One
was by Suman (hereinafter to be described as 'A-3') while the G
other was by the State. Five accused persons faced trial for
""--.
alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections
498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short
the 'IPC'). Learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Khamgaon
directed acquittal of accused 1, 2, 4 and 5. The present H
..,
892
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 16 S.C.R.
A
appellant was A-1. The trial Court directed conviction of
.
'
....
accused Suman who in the meantime died. The appeal fil~d
by the State was admitted only against the acquittal of present
appellant. High Court allowed the appeal and convicted
B
appellant for offences punishable under Section 498A, 304-B
and 306 IPC. .
. '
2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:
--+
Shrirang (PW-1) S/o Yashwant Rautand Sou. Vimal W/o
t
Shrirang Raut resident of Bhusawal had two daughters and a
c
~
I
son. Nirmala (PW-3) w/o. Subhas~ Marine is their elde.r
daughter and Anita (hereinafter referr~d to as 'deceased') was
their younger daughter. Anita was married to accused No.1
Vijay S/o Pralhad Ghodke on 14.2.1990. After their marriage,
Anita went to stay with her husband at Khamgaon. Accused
D No.3 Suman is Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.