1. The State of Maharashtra has preferred this Appeal against the Judgment and Order of acquittal dated 25th May, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur in Session Trial No. 17 of 2005. The Respondents were the original Accused nos. 1 and 2. They were charged for the commission of offences punishable under sections 498A and 306 r/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as “IPC”). After considering the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge acquitted both the Respondents/Accused from the charges levelled against them. Hence, the State has preferred the present Appeal.

2. The matter was admitted. It was kept for final disposal on 5th February 2026.

3. Heard learned APP- Ms. Priyanka Rane for the Appellant-State. None appeared for the Respondents.

For convenience, both the Respondents are referred to by their original status as accused before the Trial Court.

PROSECUTION’S CASE:

4. The Prosecution’s case is that the victim Shalan @ Shobha (deceased) got married to Accused no.1. Accused no. 2 is the mother of the Accused no.1. The marriage between the victim (deceased) and Accused no.1 was solemnised on 9th May, 1996 at village Sambare. After marriage, victim went to village Rajgoli for her marital obligations and stayed there for a year, during which everything went on smoothly between the parties.

5. The victim’s father (Complainant) owned a tractor, and as Accused no.1 knew how to drive a tractor, the victim’s father (Complainant) brought him and the victim to village Sambare. Accused no.1 would drive the tractor and the father-in-law (Complainant) would pay him a salary of Rs. 1,500/- per month. Victim and Accused no.1 stayed at the residence of the Complainant. They stayed there for 4 years. During their stay, the Accused no.1 was addicted to liquor.

6. During their stay at village Sambare, the Accused no.1 made demands to the victim for arranging money from her father i.e. the Complainant to purchase a tractor for him, to which the Complainant expressed his inability to provide the money. Later on, the Accused no.1 insisted the victim to convince her father to transfer his tractor in the name of Accused no.1, but Complainant refused to do the same. Hence, the Accused no.1 quarrelled with the victim and took her back to village Rajgoli, and started residing there. During there stay at village Rajgoli, the Accused no.1 continued harassing the victim for the tractor. Victim would inform her father about the harassment.

7. On one of the occasions, 2 years prior to the date of the incident, victim had informed her father about the harassment for tractor and that both the accused had beat and abused her. The Complainant along with other people residents of village Sambare acting as mediators went to the house of both accused persons and requested them to treat their daughter properly, the accused had assured for the same. But the same continued.

8. On 29th April, 2005 around 8:00 a.m., Mr. Bhimrao Bhandurge- uncle of Accused no.1 came to Complainant’s residence inquiring about the whereabouts of the victim and informed that she had been missing since the previous night. The Complainant along with 2 other people at about 3:00 pm went to village Rajgoli to Accused’ residence, where both the Accused were present. Accused no.2 informed the Complainant that victim had jumped into the well. The Complainant, then went to the Police-Patil of the village who confirmed the incident, and thereafter went to the well which was situated in the farms of Mr. Mahadev Patil. There they saw that the body of the victim was floating on the water in the well. The body of the victim in the presence of the police was taken out and sent to Primary Health Centre Kowad for post-mortem examination. The Medical Officer upon conducting the PM examination concluded that the cause of death was ‘asphyxia due to drowning’. The victim’s father had lodged a report and FIR was registered vide C.R. No. 32 of 2005 with the Chandgad Police Station for offences under sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC. The investigation was conducted. Both the accused were arrested. After the completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.

9. During the trial, the prosecution examined seven witnesses; including a panch for the spot panchnama, Police-Patil, the Complainant, mediator/co-villager, neighbour of the Complainant, Police Head Constable and the Investigating Officer.

10. The defence of the accused was of total denial and false implication. They took a defence that the Complainant had not paid salary to the Accused No.1 for his work during the stay of 2 years, upon demanding the same, the Complainant ousted him from village Sambare and is taking undue advantage of the situation by falsely implicating them. However, the defence during the examination had suggested to the witnesses that the victim Shalan @ Shobha had gone to the well to fetch drinking water from the said well, her leg slipped and she fell into the well and died of drowning.

11. The learned Trial Judge considered the evidence on record and defence of the accused. He recorded a finding that there is no evidence against the Accused no.2- Shanta to prove she treated the victim with cruelty and abetted her suicide. As for the Accused no.1, the evidence of the witnesses viz. P.W.3- the Complainant, P.W.4- mediator Hariba Patil and P.W.5- Shanta (neighbour) do not go hand in hand, and evidence of PW-5 is not sufficient to prove cruelty on part of Accused no.1 towards the victim. Further, the learned Trial Judge had also recorded that, though the prosecution had established that the victim had committed suicide, there is lack of evidence on part of the prosecution in establishing the cruelty as alleged and abetting the suicide of victim. On all these counts, the learned Judge acquitted both the accused.

12. PW-1 Ashok Chougule was a pancha for the spot panchnama, which is produced on record at Exhibit P-21. The spot of the incident is hardly in dispute; however, he had agreed to the suggestion that there is a possibility of slipping while fetching water from the well. It was conducted between 4:00p.m. to 5:00p.m.

13. PW-2 Sardar Mangauri was the Police-Patil. He had lodged report with Out-post Kowad police station on 29th April, 2005 (date of incident) which is produced at Exhibit P-23. He had denied the suggestion that there was water pot near the well and that he did not recollect whether or not there were chappals near the well.

14. PW-3 Pandurang Chandgadkar was the Complainant and father of the victim, and father-in-law of Accused No.1. he deposed that after one year of marriage between his daughter and Accused no.1, he brought them to village Sambare. There Accused no.1 would work on his tractor for a salary of Rs.1,500/-per month. They stayed at PW-3’s residence for 4 years and during his tenure Accused No.1 would beat his daughter under the influence of alcohol. He deposed that after sending Accused no.1 and his daughter back to village Rajgoli, Accused No.1 started harassing his daughter and beat her on account of demand of money from PW-3 for purchase of new tractor or to transfer tractor owned by PW-3 in his name. He also deposed that his daughter would inform him about her grievance/ill-treatment. He further deposed that around 2 years before the date of incident, he along with other co-villagers Narasu Patil, Harba Patil and Dhondi Patil went to village Rajgoli to mediate and pacify the Accused No.1 and thereafter, for some time Accused did not harass his daughter.

He deposed that on the day of the incident, uncle of Accused No.1 visited his residence and informed that his daughter was missing and is not found anywhere in Rajgoli. Around 3:00p.m. he went to the residence of both the accused, where they informed him that his daughter had drowned and her body was floating in the well. The body was taken out from the well in the presence of the police and that there was injury on her neck. He reported the said incident with the Out-post Kowad police station and his statement was recorded which is at Exhibit P-25 and FIR was registered with CR No. 32/2005 with Chandgad Police Station.

In the cross-examination he admitted that Accused No.1 was working with him, and denied the suggestion that PW-3 did not pay salary to him. PW-3 admitted that during the period of Accused No.1’s stay with PW-3 at village Sambare, she resided in Rajgoli at her matrimonial home. This was not mentioned by PW-3 while recording of his statement. He stated that he was at Out-post Kowad Police Station from 9:00p.m. to 1:00 a.m. and that he did not attend his daughter’s funeral. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely implicated the Accused to avoid payment of wages.

15. PW-4 Hariba Patil was an acquaintance of PW-3. He deposed that 2-3 years prior to the incident he had acted as mediator in the marriage between Accused no.1 and the Victim. He repeated the story as deposed by PW-3. He deposed that he along with PW-3 and PW-3’s relative reached village Rajgoli on the date of incident around 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

In his cross-examination, he volunteered that Accused no.1 did the work for 4 years at village Sambare. He further volunteered that Police-Patil had accompanied them to the spot of the well. He had stated that there was wheel injury on victim’s neck.

16. PW-5 Shanta is neighbour of PW-3. She deposed that after residing at village Rajgoli for 1 year after marriage, Accused no.1 and the victim resided with PW-3 at village Sambare for 4 years. She repeated the story of Accused demanding money to the victim from PW-3.

In her cross-examination, she has stated that during victim’s stay at PW-3’s residence, she never complained against the Accused. She also, denied the suggestion that victim would not complain about the accused to PW-3 or her.

17. PW-6 Aappasaheb Surange was the Police Head Constable. He deposed that Police-Patil had informed about the dead body of victim Shobha @ Shalan floating in the well in the field owned by Mahadev Patil. He further deposed that dead body was taken out of the well in the presence of Police-Patil and Panch, and inquest panchnama was prepared. Inquest Panchnama is produced on record at Exhibit P-15. Then, spot panchnama was prepared by him. Thereafter, body was sent to Primary Health Centre, Kowad for post-mortem examination. Medical Report is produced as Exhibit P-31.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that Police-Patil had come to Out-post Kowad Police station on the date of incident and they together went to the spot of incident. Inquest Panchnama was conducted between 4:15p.m. to 4:45p.m. He denied the suggestion that spot panchnama was prepared at the out-post Kowad police station. He and Police Patil had not accompanied the dead body to Health Centre.

18. PW-7 Satappa, PSI was the Investigating Officer. He deposed that, during initial investigation he recorded statement of the father of the victim and lodged his report, on the basis of which FIR with CR No. 32 of 2005 was registered with Chandgad Police Station and recorded the statement of the witnesses. He arrested both the accused on 30th April, 2005.

In his cross-examination, nothing substantial could be made out.

This, in short, is the evidence led by the prosecution.

19. The defence of the accused, as mentioned earlier, was of total denial. As mentioned earlier, the learned Judge acquitted both the accused on the basis of the reasoning referred to herein above.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE STATE:

20. Heard Ms. Priyanka Rane, learned APP appearing for the Appellant-State. Learned APP submitted that the learned Judge erred in acquitting the accused. The State has relied on the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5. The depositions of these witnesses clearly state about the ill-treatment towards the victim and that the defence has not denied that victim has died of suicide.

ANALYSIS & CONCLUSION:

21. I have considered the submissions in the light of evidence led by the prosecution.

22. The evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 is incongruent and inconsistent with that of PW-6. As per the PW-6, Police-Patil lodged the information about the death of the victim Shobha and they together accompanied to the spot of incident i.e. well. Whereas, as per the story of PW-3 and PW-4, they visited the Police-Patil and upon receiving the message of arrival of police at the spot of incident, then went to the well.

23. Time of recording of Spot Panchnama is mentioned as 4:15 p.m. to 4:45 p.m. and that of recording of inquest panchnama is mentioned as 4:00 pm to 5:00 p.m. However, the report of Police-Patil at Exhibit P-23 indicates the time of station diary entry as 6:05 p.m.

24. PW-3 in his evidence has stated that during the stay of Accused No.1 and victim at his residence, Accused No. 1 insisted victim to demand money from her father to buy a new tractor or transfer the tractor owned by PW-3 in his name. However, PW-5 in her evidence has stated that during the victim’s stay at PW-3’s house, she would never complain about the Accused.

25. PW-3 during his evidence had deposed that Accused No.1 and his daughter stayed at his residence during the stay. However, in cross-examination he contradicts his own statement stating that during Accused No.1’s stay at his residence, victim resided at her matrimonial house in village Rajgoli.

26. PW-3 in his evidence had stated about an incident prior to 2 years of death of victim, that, he along with PW-4 and other co-villagers had been to residence of accused to mediate and pacify the accused. Thereafter, for some period victim was not harassed. But the version of PW-4 of the same incident differs from that of PW-3.

According to PW-4, when they tried to convince and pacify the Accused no.1, he insisted that either money should be paid to him or tractor owned by PW-3 should be transferred in his name. Thus, the evidence of PW-3 and PW-4 also is inconsistent with each other and hence, is not reliable.

27. The learned Trial Judge has rightly observed that, the evidence of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-5 do not go together. Though prosecution has established that victim Shobha had committed suicide, but evidence was lacking on part of the prosecution to establish cruelty towards her and that accused had abetted suicidal death. The learned Trial Judge had also observed that there was no evidence against Accused No.2.

28. The Apex Court in Babu Sahebagouda Rurdragoudar & Ors. v. State of Karnataka [(2024) 8 SCC 149] had laid down principles in determining the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court. The relevant para has been reiterated as follows:

                    41. Thus, it is beyond the pale of doubt that the scope of interference by an appellate court for reversing the judgment of acquittal recorded by the trial court in favour of the accused has to be exercised within the four corners of the following principles:

                    41.1. That the judgment of acquittal sufers from patent perversity;

                    41.2. That the same is based on a misreading/omission to consider material evidence on record; and

                    41.3. That no two reasonable views are possible and only the view consistent with the guilt of the accused is possible from the evidence available on record.

29. The Apex Court in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka [(2023) 9 SCC 581], had summarised the principles governing the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under section 378 of the CrPC.

                    8. …The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC can be summarised as follows:

                    8.1. The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

                    8.2. The appellate court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to reappreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

                    8.3. The appellate court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after reappreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the trial court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

                    8.4. If the view taken is a possible view, the appellate court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

                    8.5. The appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a ftnding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible.”

30. There is, thus, no reason to interfere with the impugned Judgment and Order dated 25th May, 2006 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj, Kolhapur in Session Trial No. 17 of 2005. The view taken by learned judge is possible and not perverse, the appeal cannot succeed.

31. The Criminal Appeal 1081 of 2006 is dismissed.

32. All parties to act on an authenticated copy of this order.