Circumstance number 2 was held as numbercircumstance against the respondent.
He had carried Dr. Shah, Mrs. Pushpa, and Vibha in the jeep from Harsha apartment to Sion Hospital and on the away had halted the jeep at Dr. Chandans Hospital.
The defence of the accused was that because he had become fat and bulky and his face was disfigured because of an attack of small pox after the marriage and as the parents of Vibha believed that he had taken to smoking and drinking and was in a bad companypany, they thought that they had companymitted a mistake in getting their daughter married with him and therefore wanted her to take a divorce.
One made to Pushpa was disbelieved mainly on the ground that after it was stated to have been made numberfurther enquiries were made by Pushpa from her regarding the reason and the manner in which she was burnt and also because that was number stated to Dr. Shah by Vibha or Pushpa.
He had four daughters including Vibha.
If Vibha was burnt by the respondent she would have asked for herself from the two visitors and they would have certainly rendered it.
On the basis of the burn injuries by the respondent the High companyrt inferred that the respondent must have tried to extinguish the fire and that was probably the reason why there was some lapse of time in answering the door bell.
On merits it held that the circumstances which were relied upon for proving that charge were number sufficient to lead to that companyclusion because The circumstances that rachana was number allowed to stay with Vibha at her in laws house at Dadar was number even alleged to be a cause of suicide or any other physical or mental injury and numberevidence was led to show that this incident had weighed on her mind and had led her to companymit suicide.
the driver and Rachna first went up in a lift.
It was also the prosecution case that on the very first visit by the parents of Vibha to the respondents fathers flat at Dadar, the respondents father had insulted Vibhas mother Pushpa.
At that time Vibha rushed into the drawing room in burning companydition.
thereupon he had paid Rs.
4 of 1986 and Criminal Appeal No.
The respondent was found number taking any initiative for extinguishing the fire.
In order to prove the charge of cruelty, prosecution had relied upon the following circumstances and incidents, as disclosed from the evidence of Chandrakant PW 7 , Pushpa PW 8 , Usha PW 2 , Sushma PW 12 and Mrs. Wagle PW 13 1 insult of Vibhas parents by respondents father when they had gone to the house of respondents parents at Dadar, first time after the marriage of Vibha 2 attitude of the parents of the respondent at the time of delivery of Vibha 3 attitude of the parents of the respondent at the time of delivery of Vibha 4 attitude of the parents of the respondent while Rachna was required to be Hospitalised for a fortnight 5 number allowing rachna to remain in their house when vibha returned after delivery 6 numberlove and affection shown by the respondent ad his parents for rachna 7 incident of 26th November, 1983 when the respondent and his father told Vibhas father to take her back 8 demand of dowery and payments made by Vibhas father Chandrakant PW 7 9 number giving utensils and other household articles to Vibha by the parents of the respondent when she and the respondent started staying at the Mulund flat and requiring the parents of Vibha to purchase such articles and 10 demands for money made by the respondent and his father for the business of the respondent.
5,000 as that amount was needed by him, vibhas father had paid that amount.
As regards the incident or 23.6.1984, his version was that while he was talking with Prakash Tambe PW 9 and Maheshchandra Tiwari PW 10 in the drawing room driver Vijay Gari Yadav PW 11 came there with Rachna.
He companysidered it belows his dignity and status to talk to the parents of vibha as they were uneducated.
It also held that as Usha and Pushpa were called with Rachana and the respondent knew about that it was unreasonable to believe that he would have thought of killing her at that time .
it, however, held that i as the respondent had, on the next day, apologised to Vibhas parents and had given an assurance that he would treat her well and number harass her though he had money problems ii numberincident of any significance had taken place thereafter, and even after the incident of 26.11.1983 the respondent and Vibha used to go to Dadar Frequently and were staying there and there was numberevidence worth companysidering with regard to any physical ill treatment to Vibha, the first circumstance companyld number have provided any motive for the respondent to kill her.
At the time of his marriage the respondent was staying with his father Chotelal who was then an Assistant Commissioner of police in Bombay.
When the respondent opened the door and they entered the flat they found that Vibha was burning in flames and was lying on the floor of the drawing room.
Sushma pressed the bell for about 10 minutes but the respondent did number open the door.
she gave birth to a female child on 27.3.1982.
The High Court also found the evidence of Yadav PW 11 unreliable except to the following extent The witness had driven Mrs. Shukla, Usha and the baby Rachna in a jeep from Jogeshwari i.e. from Chandrakants place to Mulund i.e. the accuseds house.
After about four or five days Rachna became ill and was admitted in a hospital for about 15 days.
He did number explain the other incriminating circumstances.
Partly relying upon the evidence of Tambe and Tiwari and what was indicated by the scene of offence panchnama the High Court held that in all probability a quarrel leading to a scuffle had taken place between Vibha and respondent before the visitors came to their flat and that while the respondent and the visitors were talking outside she poured kerosene over her body, lit herself and then rushed into the drawing room.
The respondent married Vibha on 29.5.1981.
585 of 1984 companyvicting the respondent under section 498A IPC for subjecting his wife Vibha to cruelty and under section 302 IPC for causing her death.
Re appreciating the evidence of Tambe PW 9 and Tiwari PW 10 , the two hostile witnesses, the High Court held that they were number telling the truth but on the basis of their evidence and the other evidence what can be believed is that both of them had gone to the accuseds flat at about 2.15 P.M. on that day.
On vibhas request number to quarrel Sushma had gone back with the child who was brought up thereafter by the parents of Vibha.
Only on the next day the respondent had gone to the hospital but his parents had number visited the hospital at all.
The high Court believed that the companyduct of the respondent was rather unnatural and unusual but it companyld number be regarded as an incriminating circumstance as the respondent must have been in companyfused state of mind in view of the circumstances in which he was placed and possibly because he must have thought that he would become the target of attack of his in laws and held responsible for Vibhas death.
The respondent, however, did number invite him on the opening day of the factory but, when he went on his own to the factory after about 10 days the respondents had told him that he needed more money to run his factory.
Thirdly, he had gone downstairs with the baby and when the accused came down, he had carried him upto the dispensary of Dr. Mukhi.
As Rachna started crying he shouted for Vibha.
She had to undergo a Caesarean operation.
When he had inquired about the reason, respondents father had replied that the respondent was in need of Rs.
Vibhas father to be a guarantor and also obtained his signatures on some loan papers.
One of the neighbours of the respondent called a doctor who gave some preliminary treatment to Vibha.
As regards the third circumstance the trial companyrt, in absence of companysistent evidence as to how the invitation was extended to the parents of the respondent and in view of the fact that they were number personally invited but the invitation was extended only over telephone, held that their number attending the function, was number indicative of any intention to harass.
When Vibhas father had told him to take his daughter back.
Vibha was allowed to stay but the respondent had told sushma to take Rachna back and when Sushma had shown her inability to take the child back the respondent had told her to place the child under tyres of a car.
During one of his visits to Vibhas parents house the respondent had stated to them that he had numberlove and affection for Rachna or even for Vibha and that he was more interested in money.
On the same day vibha along with her daughter Rachna and sister Sushma had gone to Vibhas in laws house at Dadar.
On 22.6.1984 she had sent a telephonic message to her parents that her mother should be sent with her daughter at Mulund on the next day as she was thereafter to go to Dadar and stay there for few days.
At that moment Pushpa and Sushma entered the flat and started shouting Aag Laga Gaya.
They had entered the flat, had talk with the accused and were sitting in the drawing room when Vibha came to the drawing room in flames.
While extinguishing the fire with the help of a curtain he received burn injuries on his hands and face, so he went to a private hospital and got himself admitted there.
It was also the prosecution case that by this time at the instance of the respondent Vibha had withdrawn rs.
On 26.11.1983 possibly because the situation became intolerable Vibha had telephoned her father that she was being harassed by the respondent and his parents and that he should companye and take her and back immediately.
That was the reason why the parents of Vibha were number sending Rachna to his house even though he w as willing to keep her.
Pushpa then requested he respondent at least to call a doctor.
When Vibhas father had gone there she was found crying.
He was asked by the accused to go away as soon as the accused got down from the jeep and he had returned with the jeep to Harsha Apartment.
Ushas evidence was disbelieved as numberburn injuries were received by her or pushpa.
288 of 1986.
He wanted Vibhas father to give money for that purpose.
That was in November or December, 1981.
On seeing Vibha burning Tambe, Tiwari and Yadav ran out of the flat.
Neither the parents number the sister of Vibha have deposed about any companyplaint made by her regarding any ill treatment by the respondent after the incident of 26.11.1983.
The female child was named Rachna.
He was thus forced to take Vibha back to his house at Jogeshwari.
The respondent was then serving in local companycern.
Incidents circumstances at serial numbers five six and seven were held proved.
The other two circumstances were regarded as too weak.
Vibhas father chandrakant was required to pay money for utensils, gas companynection and other articles required for setting up respondents home at Mulund.
Therefore, on 23.6.1984, Vibhas mother Pushpa PW 8 and her sister Usha PW 2 along with the child went in their jeep to Mulund.
It was the prosecution case that the proposal had companye from the respondents side for the hand of Vibha an during further negotiations respondents father had demanded dowry of Rs.
1,50,000.
even though the respondent and his parents were informed about the operation and birth of the female child numbere of them visited the hospital at the time of the operation.
The remaining three circumstances were relied upon in support of it s companytention that the respondent had harassed Vibha with a view to companyrce her and her father to meet the unlawful demands for money and or that the harassment was on account of failure by her and her father to meet such demands.
They companyld hear the respondent uttering abusive words from inside the flat.
The dying declaration was disbelieved on the ground that Dr. shah did number refer to the presence of Vibhas father Chandrakant near the jeep and that when Dr.Rajan Gupta PW 16 had asked Vibha about the history of burns she had stated that she had received burns by kerosene and numberfurther details were given by her.
Thereafter when Pushpa inquired as to what had happened Vibha had told her that Ashok Ne Mujhe Jala Diya Ashok has burnt me .
They were staying in a Government flat at Dadar.
So Sushma pulled a curtain and extinguished the fire.
Vibha was the daughter of Chandrakant Shukla, an uneducated person, who started his life as a salesman, but eventually switched over to business and in due companyrse of time became an owner of 15 flour mills and 3 buildings.
By that time Dr. Shah made arrangements for Getting her admitted Vibhas father had also arrived thee and when he inquired from Vibha as to what had happened she told him that she was burnt by Ashok.
The High Court found that the inferences drawn and the findings recorded by the trial companyrt were number justified.
It also believed the incident of 26.11.83.
The trial companyrt also believed the evidence of Usha and Pushpa that the respondent had number made any attempt to extinguish the fire or helped Usha in doing so and had number shown any initiative to call a doctor.
The High Court disbelieved both the dying declarations.
One of the neighbours of the respondent called a doctor who gave some preliminary treatment to Vibha and took her to Sion Hospital.
30,000 to the respondent.
The fourth reason indicating suicide was that the visitors had left the flat hurriedly after Vibha had appeared before them in flames.
The circumstance that neither the parents number the respondent liked the female child, in absence of any evidence regarding its effect on the mind of Vibha, companyld number be regarded as an act of cruelty.
Right from September October, 1981 the respondent and his parents were harassing her for money but she was tolerating the harassment with the hope of better days in future.
The High Court further held that the circumstance, namely, that the act of burning had taken place while Tambe PW 9 and Tiwari PW 10 were in the flat, alone was sufficient to negative any hypothesis of homicide.
Vibha had studied upto first year B.Sc Vibhas family was staying at Jogeshwari.
The trial companyrt believed that the respondent was in need of money for his business, that he was harassing Vibha with a view to companyrce her to get money from her father and that Vibhas father had shown his unwillingness to give more money to him.
On the basis of first seven incidents circumstances it was companytended by the state that the respondent had by his wilful companyduct caused Cruelty to Vibha.
The prosecution case further was that in September or October, 1981 the respondent decided to give up the job and set up a plastic factory of his own.
The incident of 26.11.83 became irrelevant as on the very next day the respondent had tendered an apology and Vibha had gone with the respondent again to her in laws place and numberincident of harassment had taken place till 236.84 and particularly when Vibha had also gone to Dadar and stayed with parents in law on some occasions during that period.
even thereafter the parents of the respondent did number visit the hospital to inquire about the health of Vibha or to see the female child.
Vibha was by that time pregnant so she went to her parents house at Jogeshwari in January, 1982 for delivery.
Thereupon the respondent went down, sat in the jeep of Vibhas father, went to a hospital and got himself admitted there instead of sending a doctor for treatment of Vibha.
The High Court, after re appreciating the evidence regarding the incident of burning on 23.6.84, recorded a companytrary finding that it was a case of suicide and number homicide.
15,000 from her bank account and paid to the respondent.
It further held that they were companycocted with a view to boost up the charge against the respondent.
He had obtained some qualification in engineering from a foreign private institution.
By the time Pushpa and Sushma reached the flat child Rachna had started crying so they told the driver to take her down.
Ultimately, Chandrakant had agreed to pay Rs.
30,000 and that he should pay that amount.
The High Court reversed the Judgment of the Court of Sessions for Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No.
The High Court found the evidence of Usha PW 2 and Pushpa PW 8 inconsistent on two material points viz.,
In may, 1982 the respondent had visited Vibhas fathers house at jogeshwari and demanded rs.
The respondent did number allow the driver to enter the flat.
None of them remained present on 7th April, 1982 the day on which her naming ceremony was performed.
The door of the flat was opened by Vibha.
who pulled the curtain and tried to extinguish the fire and the companyduct of respondent.
Moreover, Vibha was more agile than the respondent and , therefore, she companyld have run out of the flat.
Moreover, the small burnt portion of the curtain indicated that very little fire was required to be extinguished after they had entered the flat.
NANAVATI,J. This appeal, by the State of Maharashtra is Directed against the companymon judgment and order passed by the Bombay High Court, in Confirmation Case No.
The police was informed, a case was registered and ultimately the respondent was chargesheeted and tried for companymitting the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 302 IPC.
Secondly, he had gone to the flat along with the baby, and at that time had seen both Tambe and Tiwari companying out of the flat.
the third reason given by the High Court for holding that the evidence was more companysistent with the hypothesis of suicide is that if respondent had tried to burn Vibha she would have resisted and in that case there would have been some struggle and scuffle, shouts and screaming or at least audible exchange of words but numberhing of that sort was heard by the visitors.
The second reason given by the High Court for number accepting the prosecution version of homicide is that the respondent had gone inside the bed room for about 2 to 3 minutes only and , therefore, it was number probable that he companyld have burnt the deceased within that short time.
