REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 242 OF 2008

Vijay ….Appellant  

Versus

State of Maharashtra …Respondent  

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. In this appeal challenge is to the order passed by a Division Bench of

the Bombay High Court,  Nagpur Bench, allowing the appeal filed by the

State. By the common judgment two appeals were disposed of. One was by

Suman (hereinafter  to be described as ‘A-3’) while  the other  was by the

State.  Five accused persons faced trial for alleged commission of offences

punishable under Sections 498A, 306 and 304B of the Indian Penal Code,

1

1860  (in  short  the  ‘IPC’).   Learned  2nd Additional  Sessions  Judge,

Khamgaon directed acquittal of accused 1, 2, 4 and 5. The present appellant

was A-1.  The trial Court directed conviction of accused Suman who in the

meantime died.  The appeal filed by the State was admitted only against the

acquittal of present appellant. High Court allowed the appeal and convicted

appellant for offences punishable under Section 498A, 304-B and 306 IPC.   

2. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

Shrirang (PW-1) S/o Yashwant Raut and Sou. Vimal W/o Shrirang

Raut resident of Bhusawal had two daughters and a son. Nirmala (PW-3)

w/o. Subhash Marine is their elder daughter and Anita (hereinafter referred

to as ‘deceased’) was their younger daughter. Anita was married to accused

No.1 Vijay S/o Pralhad Ghodke on 14.2.1990. After their marriage, Anita

went to stay with her  husband at Khamgaon. Accused No.3 Suman is the

mother-in-law, accused No.4 Pralhad S/o Rangnath Ghodke is the father-in-

law and accused no.2 Raju S/o Pralhad Ghodke and accused no.5 Pappu S/o

Pralhad Ghodke are the brothers-in-law of Anita. All of them were residing

jointly.  

During  Diwali  of  1990,  Anita  went  to  her  parental  house  at

Bhusawal and stayed there for about 4-5 days, During her stay Anita told

2

her  parents  that  her  husband  (accused  No.1-Vijay)  was  demanding

Rs.10,000/- and her mother-in-law (accused No.3 Suman) was demanding

gold  ring.  The  parents  of  Anita  expressed  their  inability  to  satisfy  the

demand.

On 7.2.1991  Shrirang  (PW-1)  received  a  letter  (Exh.  19)  of  Anita

reiterating the demand of gold ring and money. After receiving the letter,

PW-1 Shrirang (PW-1) went to the matrimonial house of Anita and asked

her husband and mother-in-law to send Anita with him. However, they did

not send her. So he went back. On 10.4.1991 the parents of Anita received

message that Anita died due to burning. Hence they rushed to Khamgaon

where they had to attend the funeral of Anita. Then Shrirang (PW-1) lodged

report with Police Station, Khamgaon. Since no action was taken, he moved

Superintendent  of  Police,  Buldana  (Vide  Exh.  20).  On  the  direction  of

Superintendent of Police, Buldana Crime No, 118/1991 under Sections 498-

A and 304-B read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered

at  Police  Station,  Khamgaon  on  14.4.1991  against  the  accused  persons.

After investigation the accused persons were charge sheeted. The defence of

the accused persons was of denial.

3

In order  to  establish  the  accusations  the  prosecution  examined  six

witnesses including Shrirang (PW-1) the father of the deceased, Vimal (PW-

2) the mother of the deceased and Smt. Nirmala (PW-3) the elder sister of

the deceased.  The trial Court found that the demand of gold ring by A-3

and cruelty to deceased on account of non satisfaction of the demand was

proved only against  A-3. It  was found that  Anita had committed suicide.

Accordingly,  A-3  was  convicted  as  afore-noted  and  rest  of  the  accused

persons were acquitted. As noted above, Suman challenged the conviction

whereas the State challenged the acquittal of rest of the accused persons.   

The High Court found that the case of prosecution depended upon the

interpretation of Exh.19 i.e. the letter written by the deceased to PW-1. The

trial Court found that the letter only referred to the demand of gold ring by

A-3  and  there  was  nothing  to  implicate  the present  appellant.  The  High

Court,  however, felt  that  on reading of Exh.19 it  is  crystal  clear that  the

same also related to  the demand of Rs.10,000/-  by the present  appellant.

Accordingly, as noted above, while dismissing the appeal filed by A-3 the

State’s appeal in respect of present appellant was allowed.  

4

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court had

rightly  held  that  in  Exh.19  there  was  nothing  to  implicate  the  present

appellant.  Therefore,  his  acquittal  was  correct,  but  the  High  Court  on

erroneous reading of the document has directed conviction.  

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand supported the order.  

5. In the letter on which both the trial Court and the High Court have

relied upon to conclude one way or the other, reference is made to several

earlier letters. It specifically refers to the demand by mother-in-law of a gold

ring.  There is no reference to the present appellant in the letter.  

6. The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 3 is also relevant.  PW-1 has stated that

except Exh.19 he had not received any letter and the statement in the letter

to the effect that the deceased had earlier sent 2/3 letters is correct. If on one

hand he says that he had not received any letter, the question of not replying

to  them does  not  arise.   Similarly,  PW-2 has  stated  that  she  cannot  say

whether there was any demand of Rs.10,000/- in Exh.19. PW-3 has accepted

that  deceased  had  written  to  her  father  that  mother-in-law  Suman  was

demanding gold ring in the letter (Ext.19).

5

7. Learned counsel for the State submitted that there is some reference

to  money  in  the  letter.  The  sentence  is  being  read  out  of  context.  The

deceased had written in the letter that she may have to get a gold ring but

wherefrom will  she get  the  money for  buying it.   Therefore,  there  is  no

reference to any demand of money by the present appellant. That being so,

the High Court was not justified in upsetting the judgment of the trial Court.

The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial

Court is restored.  

8. The appeal is allowed.  

………….....................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)              

………….……….........................J.          (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)

New Delhi, December 1, 2008

6