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  R D E R

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  

-2-

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

-3-

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  

-4-

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.