SAHEBRAO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2006-5-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on
May 03,2006
SAHEBRAO AND ANN
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ZAHOOR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]TARA SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
JAMNA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
PAWAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. GIAN CHAND [REFERRED TO]
RAVINDER KUMAR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD HOSHAN VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
AMAR SINGH VS. BALWINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
HANS RAJ VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAM PAL VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-176] [REFERRED TO]SAHODRA KUMARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2018-4-230] [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR PASWAN, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-7-34] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH RAMRAO NALAWADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2006-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
SAWANT VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2006-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. BALDEV SINGH SON OF THUNDU RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2013-1-101] [REFERRED]
DALIP KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2012-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
NITAI BAIDYA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2021-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
MITHAIYA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-52] [REFERRED TO]
IRFAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-1-189] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT KUMAR MANNA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-2-57] [REFERRED TO]
NILADRI DAS @ SUNNI VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2015-6-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAM LAKHAN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-79] [REFERRED TO]
GAJENDRA SINGH VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2023-5-204] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANTA DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-4-33] [REFERRED TO]
ASHUTOSH DAS VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2009-3-46] [REFERRED TO]
LAL MOHAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-42] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH @ TIDKE VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-10-54] [REFERRED TO]
FALGUNA DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-8-73] [REFERRED TO]
MAHAVIR MAHTO @ MAHABIR MAHTO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2014-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HARYANA VS. RAM KUMAR [LAWS(P&H)-2008-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
ANAND GOPAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2022-9-155] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DHAVALKUMAR UPDESHBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2019-6-222] [REFERRED TO]
PARBAT SINGH @ RANA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-2-145] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAIAH @ RAMA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(SC)-2014-8-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA DAS @ RAMU VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2013-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDA PRASAD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-4-140] [REFERRED]
NANI GOPAL SARKAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA HUSSAIN VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-36] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SALIM SHABBIRBHAI KURESHI [LAWS(GJH)-2015-4-87] [REFERRED TO]
VARINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2017-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
SANJIV VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-207] [REFERRED TO]
PALANICHAMY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2017-10-102] [REFERRED TO]
BIJAYA KUMAR SAHOO AND FIVE ORS. VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-6-33] [REFERRED TO]
PUJA KUMARI VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-94] [REFERRED TO]
SHIB SANKAR DEBNATH @ SUBIR DEBNATH VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2017-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
Parasram VS. State of M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2007-10-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKANTA DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2013-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY NAREGAL POLICE VS. YALLAPPA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-9-86] [REFERRED TO]
VITHAL ZIBLAJI SONONE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2008-1-80] [REFERRED TO]
KALLU ALIAS GURDAYAL VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-205] [REFERRED TO]
DHRUV RAJ RAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-89] [REFERRED TO]
BHOOKAN VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-114] [REFERRED TO]
BABUL RABI DAS VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2012-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
INDRABAN CHAKMA @ BIJIMUA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(GAU)-2013-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
P. P. Naolekar, J. -
(1.)The accused-appellants Sahebrao (A-1) and Bhausaheb (A-2) were tried along with their mother Shanti Bai (A-3) for committing offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The judgment dated 06-06-1992 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad found A-1 and A-;2 guilty under Sections 306 and 498-A, IPC and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 500/- each, in default, rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 306, IPC. No separate sentence was passed under Section 498-A, IPC. A-3 was acquitted. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the trial Court, the accused-appellants filed an appeal before Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The High Court by its order dated 31-1-2005 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence passed by the trial Court. That is how the appellants are before us in this appeal.
(2.)The relevant facts deduced from the evidence are that the marriage of accused-appellant A-2, resident of Village Babulkheda, and deceased Sangita, daughter of the complainant-Ramrao Laxman Darekar (PW-1), took place on 13-05-1990 at Village Pathri. The distance between Village Pathri and Babulkheda was 15 Kms. Just after the marriage, A-2 insisted for a tape recorder. PW-1 persuaded that the tape recorder would be given to him in due course of time. Three days after the marriage, the elder son of PW-1, Sucam (PW-3) along with his maternal uncle, Karbhari Vithal Jadavh (PW-4) went to village Babulkheda to take the deceased back to Village Pathri. On return, PW-3 told his father PW-1 that elder brother of A-2, accused- appellant Sahebrao (A-1) was demanding additional dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the dowry paid at the time of marriage was not as per their status and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. The deceased stayed with her father for 5-6 days and thereafter, Ambadas-brother of A-2, took her to Village Babulkheda. Ambadas on return told PW-1 that A-1 was demanding Rs.10,000/- and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. About 2-3 days later, PW-1 went to his daughters matrimonial home. She told him that A-1 and A-2 were troubling her for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a tape recorder. PW-1 though expressed his inability to pay the amount, sent PW-3 to Aurangabad for purchasing the tape recorder. After 5-6 days, PW-3 and PW-4 went to the matrimonial home of Sangita, gave the tape recorder to the accused persons and took her to her parents place at Village Pathri. After a week, Mansub- younger brother of A-2, came to the house of PW-1 to take her back to Village Babulkheda and informed him that A-1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the deceased would not accompany him unless the amount is given. He also informed PW-1 that A-1 would get angry if the amount was not paid. PW-1 somehow managed to send the deceased to her matrimonial home along with Mansub. In the month of Jaistha, when PW-1 went to see his daughter, accused persons started questioning him as to why he had not paid the amount and asked him to take his daughter back. The deceased was taken back by PW-1 and she stayed at her maiden home for a month. Mansub, once again, came to take her back to the matrimonial home. This time also, Mansub, demanded the additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. In September 1990 the deceased came back to her fathers place and on reaching there she started weeping loudly and told PW-1 and her mother that she was beaten by the accused persons and pointed out the marks of beating on her back and requested PW-1 not to send her back to Village Babulkheda. However, in the hope that situation would improve, PW-1 left his reluctant daughter to the matrimonial home on 06-09-1990. 3. That time also A-2 told him that since the amount was not given PW-;1 should take back his daughter. While returning back to his village on 07-09-1990, the deceased-daughter met him on the way and told him that it would be very difficult for her to stay and also that he might not see her again.
(3.)On 08-09-1990, the cousin brother of A-2 informed PW-1 that his daughter was ill. PW-1 along with others, went to the house of the accused persons at about 1.00 p.m. There he saw his daughter dead and no one from the family of her in-laws was present in the house. On receipt of the information of the incident, the police registered a case of accidental death. The police made inquiry from PW-1 but he told them that his mental condition is not good and that he would lodge the complaint afterwards. PW-1 lodged the complaint against the accused-appellants on 9-9-1990 at 7.30 p.m., giving the detailed narration of facts.
(2.)The relevant facts deduced from the evidence are that the marriage of accused-appellant A-2, resident of Village Babulkheda, and deceased Sangita, daughter of the complainant-Ramrao Laxman Darekar (PW-1), took place on 13-05-1990 at Village Pathri. The distance between Village Pathri and Babulkheda was 15 Kms. Just after the marriage, A-2 insisted for a tape recorder. PW-1 persuaded that the tape recorder would be given to him in due course of time. Three days after the marriage, the elder son of PW-1, Sucam (PW-3) along with his maternal uncle, Karbhari Vithal Jadavh (PW-4) went to village Babulkheda to take the deceased back to Village Pathri. On return, PW-3 told his father PW-1 that elder brother of A-2, accused- appellant Sahebrao (A-1) was demanding additional dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/- as the dowry paid at the time of marriage was not as per their status and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. The deceased stayed with her father for 5-6 days and thereafter, Ambadas-brother of A-2, took her to Village Babulkheda. Ambadas on return told PW-1 that A-1 was demanding Rs.10,000/- and A-2 was insisting for a tape recorder. About 2-3 days later, PW-1 went to his daughters matrimonial home. She told him that A-1 and A-2 were troubling her for an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and a tape recorder. PW-1 though expressed his inability to pay the amount, sent PW-3 to Aurangabad for purchasing the tape recorder. After 5-6 days, PW-3 and PW-4 went to the matrimonial home of Sangita, gave the tape recorder to the accused persons and took her to her parents place at Village Pathri. After a week, Mansub- younger brother of A-2, came to the house of PW-1 to take her back to Village Babulkheda and informed him that A-1 had demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- and the deceased would not accompany him unless the amount is given. He also informed PW-1 that A-1 would get angry if the amount was not paid. PW-1 somehow managed to send the deceased to her matrimonial home along with Mansub. In the month of Jaistha, when PW-1 went to see his daughter, accused persons started questioning him as to why he had not paid the amount and asked him to take his daughter back. The deceased was taken back by PW-1 and she stayed at her maiden home for a month. Mansub, once again, came to take her back to the matrimonial home. This time also, Mansub, demanded the additional dowry of Rs. 10,000/-. In September 1990 the deceased came back to her fathers place and on reaching there she started weeping loudly and told PW-1 and her mother that she was beaten by the accused persons and pointed out the marks of beating on her back and requested PW-1 not to send her back to Village Babulkheda. However, in the hope that situation would improve, PW-1 left his reluctant daughter to the matrimonial home on 06-09-1990. 3. That time also A-2 told him that since the amount was not given PW-;1 should take back his daughter. While returning back to his village on 07-09-1990, the deceased-daughter met him on the way and told him that it would be very difficult for her to stay and also that he might not see her again.
(3.)On 08-09-1990, the cousin brother of A-2 informed PW-1 that his daughter was ill. PW-1 along with others, went to the house of the accused persons at about 1.00 p.m. There he saw his daughter dead and no one from the family of her in-laws was present in the house. On receipt of the information of the incident, the police registered a case of accidental death. The police made inquiry from PW-1 but he told them that his mental condition is not good and that he would lodge the complaint afterwards. PW-1 lodged the complaint against the accused-appellants on 9-9-1990 at 7.30 p.m., giving the detailed narration of facts.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.