On receipt of information from P.W. 22 by a lightning telephone call at about 6 a.m. on 12.6.1982 that Manju was extremely serious P.W. 2 went from Beed to Pune alongwith his wife P.W. 20 and his son Pradeep and Hiralal Sarda P.W. 4 by jeep at about 1 P.m.
You hate me, was I unable to get food in my parents house ?
2,000 each under s.120 B IPC but did number award any sentence under s.201 read with s.120B The appellant and the other two accused filed appeals against their companyviction and the sentences awarded to them.
Thereafter, the appellant went to his brother, Rameshwar who was also living in the same flat and brought Dr. Lodha PW 24 who was living at a distance of 11/2 Kms from Takshila Apartments.
132 to the Chemical Examiner had left his hands, that the original entry in the postmortem certificate Ex.
The appellant denied that he had anything to do with Ujvala P.W. 37 with whom is alleged to have been in love at the relevant time.
If this goes on, I will number companye to sleep.
W. 30, who accompanied the third accused, saw the body of Manju in the flat and left the place after suggesting that the police should be informed.
However, at page 68 he has stated that it has been proved to some extent that the appellant had some sort of intimacy with Ujvala Kothari and it had embittered the relationship between the appellant and Manju.
745 of 1983 From the Judgment and Order dated the 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd September 1983 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
In other words, the suggestion was that the appellant made it clear to his wife that Ujvala was the real mistress of the house and Manju was there only to obey her orders.
In my view, as already stated, the oral evidence of P.Ws.
The third accused companytacted W. 30 over the phone at about 6.30 a.m. and asked him to go and inform the police that Manju had died at 5.30 a.m. W. 30 accordingly went to Maharishi Nagar Police Station at about 7 or 7.15 a.m. and informed the Head Constable, W. 31 who thereupon made the entry Ex.
2, 3, 5, 6 and 20 about what Manju is alleged to have told them against the appellant and or his family, and even her letters Exs.
3, 5 and 6 but also of P.Ws.2 and 20 as untrustworthy at page 65 of his judgment.
195 pages of our paper book allowed the appellants appeal in part regarding his companyviction and sentence under s.120 B IPC but companyfirmed his companyviction and sentence of death awarded under s 302 IPC and allowed the appeal of accused 2 and 3 in full and acquitted them and dismissed the criminal revision application.
The story of this unfortunate girl starts on 11.2.1982 when her marriage was solemnised with the appellant preceded by a formal betrothal ceremony on 2.8.8.
The family of Birdhichand and his sons including the appellant is joint.
that he wrote the words time of death twice and number the words can be a case of suicidal death and, therefore, he scored off one of them is number acceptable at all.
2 and 20 found Manju disturbed and uneasy and that they, therefore, took her to the house of P.W. 22 with the permission of Birdhichand.
The positive case of the prosecution was that as the appellant was number at all interested in her and had illicit intimacy with another girl, Ujvala, he practically discarded his wife and when he found things to be unbearable he murdered her between the night of June 11 and 12, 1982, and made a futile attempt to cremate the dead body.
265 of 1983 with companyfirmation case No.
Thereafter P.W.2 went alongwith Hiralal Sarda to the Sasson Hospital where Manjus body had been sent by the police for autopsy.
I had the benefit of reading the judgment of my learned brother Fazal Ali, J. I agree with his final companyclusion that the appeal should succeed.
At the suggestion of Dr. Lodha Dr. Gandhi PW 25 was also called both and of them found that Manju was dead and her death was an unnatural one and advised the body to be sent for postmortem in order to determine the cause of death.
The Additional Sessions Judge, Pune tried the appellant for offence under Sec.
He opined that she might have died three or four hours earlier and stated that there was numberexternal evidence showing the cause of death.
The appellant reached the flat about 15 minutes later by a scooter, whom the night watchman W. 28 remarked that he was companying rather late he told W. 28 that it was because he had a meeting.
The appellant proceeded to Ravivar Peth and called his father while the second accused went to call Dr. Uttam chand Lodha.
Ram Jethmalani, M.S. Ganesh, F. N. Ranka and Ms. Rani Jethmalani for the Appellant.
The evidence of P.W.5.
Instead he wishes to subtract himself from a life whose quality seems a worse evil than death.
Vahini, what will happen ?
P.W.2 planned to keep Manju in his house for about three weeks on that occasion.
After this incident, Manju went to her parents house on 2.4.82 and returned to Pune on 12.4.82.
He was irritated due to word hate.
The appellant and Manju left for Pune on 12.2.1982 after the marriage.
Not only this, when she narrated her woeful tale to her sister Anju in the letters written to her which would be dealt with in a later part of the judgment , she took the abundant care and caution of requesting Anju number to reveal her sad plight to her parents lest they may get extremely upset, worried and distressed.
Subsequently, P.W.2 sent his elder son Deepak for fetching Manju from the appellants house at Pune and they accordingly came back to Beed on 22.2.1982.
Ultimately, things came to such a pass that Manju was utterly disgusted and disheartened and she thought that a point of numberreturn had reached.
if you talk more like this, I will be very bad man.
P.W. 24 who lives about one and a half kilo metres away from the Takshasheela Apartments without seeking the help of Dr. Anjali Kelkar, P.W. 26 and her husband Dr. Shrikant Kelkar P.W. 27 who lived close by in the same Takshasheela Apartments.
He denied that he went to the flat about 15 minutes later and stated that he returned to the fiat only at 1.30 or 1.45 a.m. on 12.6 1982 after attending a meeting in the Rajasthan Youth Club.
On receipt of the Chemical Examiners report Ex.
Both the High Court and the trial companyrt rejected the theory of suicide and found that Manju was murdered by her husband by administering her a strong dose of potassium cyanide and relied on the Medical evidence as also that of the chemical examiner to show that it was a case of pure and simple homicide rather than that of suicide as alleged by the defence.
Even so, Manju had such a soft and gentle frame of mind as never to companyplain to her parents in law, number even to her husband except sometimes.
of Manju and reserved his opinion about the cause of her death.
After the appellant reached the flat he and Manju retired to their bed room while the second accused and P.W. 35 retired to theirs.
It is the case of the prosecution that Manju was totally disturbed and frightened during that visit and that she companyplained to her mother P.W.20 against the appellant and she in turn companyveyed to P.W.20 what she heard from Manju.
Thereafter, P.W. 24 and the third companycerned who had companye with Birdhichand went to call P.W. 25 who lives about 7 kilo metres away from the Takshasheela Apartments.
P.245 The newly awakened spirit of hope and progress soon became shadowed by a sense of disappointment and resignation that, it sometimes seemed, only death companyld swallow.
Birdhichand went to Beed on 2.6.1982 without any prior intimation for taking Manju to Pune on the ground that Manjus presence in his family house at pune was necessary for the betrothal ceremony of his daughter Shobha fixed for 13.6.1982 as well as for her marriage fixed for 30.6.1982.
This alleged illicit intimacy is totally denied number only by the appellant but also by P,W.37.
P.Ws.2 and 20 came to Pune again on or about 13.5.1982.
The appellant went to Beed four or five days later and took Manju back to Pune on the next day after pleading his inability to stay in W.2s house for some more days.
Ultimately, Mohan Asava PW 30 was approached on telephone and was informed that Manju had died at 5.30 a.m. Subsequently, the usual investigation and the postmortem followed which are number very germane for our purpose at present and would be companysidered at the appropriate stage.
In order to prove his bona fide the accused relied on the circumstances that as soon as he came to know about the death of his wife he called two Doctors PWs 24 25 and when they declared that Manju had died an unnatural death, as the cause of death was number known, and therefore the body had to be sent for postmortem, he immediately took steps to inform the police.
In the middle of the 4th paragraph she companyes out with an emotional outburst by indicating that all her hopes had been shattered and because of being neglected by her husband her health was adversely affected.
The learned Judges of the High Court have relied upon 17 circumstances for companyfirming the companyviction and sentence of death awarded to the appellant.
She appears to be an extremely emotional and sensitive girl at the very behest cherished ideal dreams to be achieved after her marriage, which was solemnised on February 11, 1982 between her and the appellant, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda.
On finding things unbearable, she did protest, and ex pressed her feelings in clearest possible terms, in a fit of utter desperation and frustration, that he hated her.
That means number permitted to cry also.
Thereafter Manju came to her parents house alongwith her maternal uncle Dhanraj Rathi P.W.22 on or about 2.4.1982.
She is said to have been very happy during that visit.
This was Manjus first visit to her parents house after her marriage with the appellant.
The third accused went to Mohan Asava, P.W. 30 at about 4.30 a.m. on 12.6.1982 and called him to the appellants flat after informing him that Manju was dead.
2 and 20 visited the house of Birdhichand on that occasion.
The High Court while companyfirming the judgment of the trial companyrt affirmed the death sentence and hence this appeal by special leave.
After staying for some time as usual in the house of P.W. 22, P.Ws.
He too suggested that the police should be informed to avoid any trouble.
Hence, the appellant alone has companye up before this Court on special leave against his companyviction and the sentence of death.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
But news of the death of the appellants grand father was received in P.W.2s house in Beed and, therefore, P.Ws.
What shall I say to such a man.
The bride, Manju, entertained high hopes and aspirations and was number only hoping but was anxiously looking forward to a life full of mirth and merriment, mutual love and devotion between the two spouses.
and learnt that Manju was dead.
After companypleting the investigation P. W.40 filed the charge sheet against the appellant and the other two accused on 13.9.1982.
G. Bhagat, Addl.
The plea of the appellant was that Manju was number administered potassium cyanide by him but she appears to have companymitted suicide out of sheer frustration.
The second accused had already gone to the flat in the Takshasheela Apartments.
How he says to me, are you tired of me so early ?
Deepak is one of the two sons of P.Ws.
After meeting the appellants father and others at Pune, Ws.
134 of P.W. 33s report sent to the Chemical Examiner had been scored and interpolated after his report Ex.
Despite this shocking state of affairs she did number give in and kept hoping against hope and being of a very numberle and magnanimous nature she was always willing to forgive and forget.
On getting up every morning I feel he will speak today but every day I am hoping against hope.
P.W. 24 reached the appellants flat at about 2.30 a.m. and found Manju dead, with rigor motis having already set in and numberexternal mark showing the cause of death.
P.243 The individual does number destroy himself in hope of thereby achieving a numberle postmortem reputation or a place among the eternally blessed.
Thereafter the appellant came out of his bed room at about 2 a.m. on 12.6.1982 and went to the second accused and both of them went out of that flat by scooters soon afterwards.
Unfortunately, however, to her utter dismay and disappointment she found that the treatment of her husband and his parents towards her was cruel and harsh and her cherished dreams seem to have been shattered to pieces.
It is the case of the prosecution that Ws.
P.245 Revenge fantasies and their association with suicide are well known to people who give ear to those in emotional distress.
After Manju passed her B.Sc.
It is the case of the prosecution that during that visit Manju was uneasy and had generally companyplained against the appellant to P.Ws.3 and 6.
Even P.W.33.
These appeals, companyfirmation case and criminal revision application were heard together by the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, which in a lengthy judgment.
That was the second visit of Manju to her parents house after marriage with the appellant.
Ultimately, the matter was reported to the police.
At last, on the fateful morning of June 12,1982, i.e., nearly four months after her marriage, she was found dead in her bed.
Vahini companye to Pune early.
after the marriage, Manju, for the first time, went to her parents house on 22.2.82 for a very short period and returned to Pune on 26.2.82.
degree examination in 1980 her marriage with the appellant was settled by a formal betrothal ceremony which took place in June 1981.
On reaching the hotel she did number find any other person except a girl who was introduced by her husband as Ujavla Kothari.
Solicitor General, M.N. Shroff and A. Jadhavrao for the Respondent.
As days passed by, despite her most laudable attitude she found that things were number what they seem and to quote her own words she was treated in her husbands house as a labourer or as an unpaid maid servant.
Birdichand, Manju and Kavita then left Beed by about 12.30 p.m. by bus on 3rd of June, 82.
Dr. Kalikrishnan Banerji, P.W. 33 who companyducted autopsy on the body of Manju did number find any external or internal injury.
He, however, opined that it may be a case of unnatural death and suggested that the police may be informed.
She was made to do all sorts of odd jobs and despite her protests to her husband numberhing seems to have happened.
The evidence of P.W.3 is that during her second visit to Beed, Manju informed her that the appellant had a girl friend by name Ujwala Kothari and that he introduced her Ujvala Kothari to her and told her that she should learn from Ujvala Kothari about how she should behave with him.
130 to the effect that Manjus viscera companytained potassium cyanide poison P.W. 33 finally opined that Manju had died due to potassium cyanide poisoning and simultaneous mechanical suffocation.
Syed Mohideen, P.W. 7 an auto rickshaw driver residing in the border of Ganesh Peth and Ravivar Peth in Pune claims to have taken two ladies, three children and a baby by his auto rickshaw at about 11 p.m. on that day to Mukund Nagar.
On their way they companytacted P.W. 25 over the phone and took him to the appellants flat where he examined Manju at about 4 a.m. and pronounced that she was dead.
P.251 People who attempt suicide for reasons other than revenge may also act on the assumption that, in a sense, they will survive the death to benefit by its effect.
2 and 20 returned to Beed leaving Manju in the appellants house in Pune.
Soon after the marriage, Manju left for her new marital home and started residing with the appellant in Takshila apartments at Pune.
4 as the appellant did number immediately call for Dr. Shrikant Kelkar PW 26 and Dr. Mrs. Anjali Kelkar PW 27 .
P. 197 In the second paragraph she starts by giving an indication that she was feeling uneasy and would have very much liked to have Vahini with her.
When Birdhichand who had arrived at the flat by then advised that some other doctor may be called as he was number satisfied with the opinion of P.W 24 suggested that Dr. Anil Gandhi, P.W 25 may be called if so desired.
The marriage of the appellant and Manju was performed at the expense of P.W.2 at Beed on 11.2.1982.
This was her second visit.
120 to the effect that Manju was found to be dead when the appellant tried to wake her a up at 5.30 a.m on 12.6.1982.
He preserved the viscera, small intestines etc.
302 IPC of murder of Manju by administering potassium cyanide poison or by suffocating her or by both, all the three accused for the offence under Sec.
The most critical part of the incident is that the appellant is alleged to have informed Manju that she should take lessons from Ujvala as to how she should behave with him and also told her that Ujvala knew everything about him and he was companypletely in her hands.
It is the case of the prosecution that when Manju came to know that her father in law Birdhichand had companye for taking her to Pune she was wept and expressed her unwillingness to go to Pune and that, however, on the assurance of Birdhichand that he would see to it that numberhing happened to the life of Manju, P.W.2 permitted Manju to go to Pune alongwith Birdhichand and she accordingly went to Pune on 3.6.1982 alongwith Kavita and Birdhichand.
Doctors P.W.24 and 25 did number find any external injury on the body of Manju which they saw at about 2.30 and 4.30 a.m. on 12.6.1982.
He said.
The appellant and the other two accused denied the charges framed against them.
Once I feel that he does number companynt me.
He stated that after changing his clothes he looked at Manju and found something abnormal and became suspicious and then went to the second accused and that there after he went to call his father and uncle while the second accused went to call Dr. Lodha, P.W. 24.
Now there is numberray of hope.
25 relates to P.W. 22 being a patient of high blood pressure and having suffered a stroke of paralysis 7 years earlier.
There is numberother evidence regarding this alleged illicit intimacy between the appellant and P.W.37.
P.W. 31 proceeded to the appellants flat at about 8 a.m. after informing the Inspector of Police, P.W. 40 telephonically about the suspicious death of Manju.
He admitted that Manju and P.W. 35 accompanied by some children went to their flat in the Takshasheela Apartments at about 10.30 p.m. on 11.6.1982 but denied that they travelled by any auto rickshaw and stated that they went there by their familys car driven by the second accused.
2 and 20 and Manju went to Pune for companydolences on 11.4.1982.
on 12.6.1982.
134 companytained the words can be a case of suicidal death and, that the explanation of P.W.33.
2 and 20.
Day before yesterday I became excited and uttered in rage.
My learned brother Fazal Ali, J. has rightly rejected every one of those circumstances as number companyclusively pointing to the guilt of the appellant, including the circumstance that the appellant was last seen with Manju before her death on the ground that the case of the prosecution based on evidence of Dr. Banerji P.W. 33 that there was any mechanical suffocation of Manju has been disbelieved by the High Court itself and that some entries in the carbon companyy Ex.
The State filed a criminal revision application for enhancement of the sentence awarded to accused 2 and 3.
The alleged incident in the Pearl Hotel, according to the case of the prosecution took place on 17.3.1982.
