STATE, THROUGH POLICE INSPECTOR Vs. RUPESH MULI, S/O BABULI
LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-466
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on November 16,2017

State, Through Police Inspector Appellant
VERSUS
Rupesh Muli, S/O Babuli Respondents

JUDGEMENT

C.V. Bhadang, J. - (1.) The Appellant-State is challenging the acquittal of the respondents from the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC, for short).
(2.) The brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the appeal, may be stated thus:- That, the respondent no. 1 is the husband of Sneha alias Lalan Rupesh Muli. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are the parents of the respondent no. 1, while the respondent no. 4 is the brother of the respondent no. 1. The respondents were put on trial for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC, before the learned Sessions Judge at Mapusa in Sessions Case No. 12/2008, for having intentionally caused the death of Sneha Muli. Now deceased, Sneha was married to the respondent no. 1 on 17.04.2006 and started staying in the matrimonial house along with the respondents at Adulshem, Ponda, Goa. It is the material case that the respondents with their common intention subjected Sneha to harassment and cruelty claiming that the parents of Sneha had given inadequate gold and utensils in the marriage. It was also claimed that the respondents were demanding money from the father of Sneha. On 21.05.2007 at about 3:00 hours, Sneha was found hanging from the roof of her bedroom. The respondent no. 1 brought the body down with the help of the respondent nos. 2 to 4, when she was declared dead.
(3.) It appears that PW-2, Rohidas Naik, the father of Sneha lodged a complaint with PW-1, Jayant Tari, the Deputy Collector at Panjim on 05.07.2007 seeking inquiry in the matter. PW-1, Jayant Tari recorded the statement of witnesses and by an order dated 16.08.2007, directed the Police Inspector, Ponda Police Station to register an offence and to investigate the matter. In pursuance of that, an FIR came to be registered against the respondents on 18.08.2007, under Section 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The Investigating Officer carried out the investigation in which he recorded the statement of witnesses and drew a spot panchanama and after completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed, which eventually came to be committed to the Sessions Court at Mapusa. It is significant to note that the chargesheet was filed against the respondents for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC, however, the learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 27.05.2009, directed the charge to be framed against the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of IPC. Accordingly, charge was framed on 17.08.2009, to which the respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence of the respondents is one of total denial and false implication. The respondent no. 1 claimed that when he woke up at 3:00 a.m., he did not find his wife i.e. Sneha in bed and found that she was hanging from the roof by a dupatta. He alerted the respondent nos. 2 to 4 and the body was brought down, when Sneha was found dead.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.