IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 19 OF 2005
LAXMAN RAM MANE
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
.. RESPONDENT(S)
O
RDER
This appeal by way of special leave arises out of
the following facts:
The deceased Vasudha @ Sangeeta was the daughter of
Chandrakant Kumbhar (PW.4) a resident of Tupgaon. Vasudha
had married to the appellant, Laxman Ram Mane, on 16th May,
1990, that is about one and a half years prior to the date
of incident, and after the marriage the couple resided in
the matrimonial home at Vitthalwadi, Pali in Raigad
District. As per the prosecution story Vasudha had gone to
her parents' home about one month prior to the incident and
had disclosed to her father and brother of her husband's
dalliance with a girl Pragati by name, and that he would
often abuse and beat her. Chandrakant told Vasudha that he
would talk to her husband on this issue after the
harvesting season was over. A few days after this visit
Chandrakant received a message that his daughter had
drowned in the river. He along with his son (PW.3) Vilas
and Pandharinath and other relatives then rushed to
Pali and a complaint of a missing person was lodged at the
Pali police station by Pandharinath. On the 9th August 1994
the police informed PW.4 that a dead body had been found
near village Shiloshi about 6 k.m. away from the village of
the appellant and the deceased. API Ramesh Deshmukh who
was then attached to the Pali police station, recovered the
dead body which was identified by Chandrakant and Vilas.
After the completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet
was filed against the appellant and his two sisters for
offences punishable under Section 498-A and Section 306
read with Section 34 of the IPC. The accused pleaded not
guilty and were brought to trial. In the cross examination
the suggestion made by the defence was that the deceased
had gone out to answer the call of nature near the river
and had accidentally slipped in and had been drowned.
The Trial Court examined the various pieces of
evidence, they being (1) the evidence of the brother and
the father of the deceased PW.3 and PW.4 respectively; (2)
the evidence of Sunita Birwadkar (PW.2) a cousin of the
deceased who deposed about the cruelty and harassment by
the accused and (3) the evidence of photographer S.N.
Dadholkar (PW.5) who deposed that he had taken the
photograph of the appellant with a young girl and that girl
was identified as Pargati. In the light of the aforesaid
circumstances the Trial Court convicted the appellants
for offences under Section 306 and Section 498-A of the
IPC but acquitted his sisters. This judgment has been
affirmed by the High Court in appeal.
Before us today, Mr. Vinay Navare, the learned
counsel for the appellant, has reiterated the arguments
that had been raised earlier. He has submitted that a
perusal of the Panchnama and the site plan revealed that
the deceased could not have committed suicide but had in
fact drowned in an accident when she had fallen into the
river while answering the call of nature. He has finally
argued that no offence under Section 498-A of the IPC was
made out and that a mere illicit relationship of a husband
with another woman did not amount to cruelty to the wife.
We have considered the arguments advanced very
carefully. First and foremost this is a matter under
Article 136 of the Constitution by way of special leave.
Two courts have found against the appellant on a minute
appreciation of the evidence. We see no reason to hold
otherwise. Nonetheless we have gone into the evidence
referred to us by the learned counsel. The fact that the
appellant had been misbehaving with his wife is in the
evidence of PW.2 and PW.3 and PW.4. It has come in their
statements that she was being harassed by the appellant and
his sisters for various reasons and that the appellant
would also side with his sisters. Be that as it may, the
sisters have already been given the benefit of doubt by the
Trial Court and we have nothing more to say on this aspect.
It is clearly revealed that harassment meted out to the
deceased and a presumption under Section 113-A of the
Evidence Act must therefore be raised against the appellant
as admittedly the accident happened about one and a half
years after the marriage.
We are of the opinion that an illicit relationship
of a married man with another woman would clearly amount
to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A. Even
assuming for a moment that this did not amount to cruelty
within the meaning of Section 498-A it could still be used
as a piece of evidence of harassment and misbehaviour of
the appellant towards the deceased.
We have also perused the Panchnama and the site
plan. We find it difficult to believe that a woman who had
been living in the area would have gone to answer the call
of nature at a place where the water was 9 ft. deep and at
a confluence of two rivers. It appears to us, therefore,
that this was a case of suicide on account of harassment
meted out to the deceased.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
....................J.
(R.M. LODHA)
New Delhi,
October 7, 2010.