Display PDF

CNR No.MHTH060002992004 .. 1 .. Sessions Case No.
198/2004 (Judgment)
MHTH060002992004 Received on : 18/08/2004

Registered on : 18/08/2004
Decided on : 14/07/2022
Duration : Y –M–D
17 – 10 - 26
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KALYAN

AT : KALYAN DISTRICT : THANE
( Presided over by S.B.Kachare )
Sessions Case No. 198/2004 Exh. No.

State of Maharashtra
( Through Vishnunagar Police Station,
District -Thane )
( C.R.No. I - 87/2004 ) .. Prosecution.
Versus
1] Chandrashekhar Mohan Chalke
Age : 37 years
2] Sau. Sarita Mohan Chalke (Died)
Age : 65 years
Both R/at : Pradeep Shantaram Patil
Chawl, Rabale Gaon, Navi Mumbai,
Thane Belapur Road .. Accused.
Offence punishable under Sections

498A, 306, r/w. Section 34 of IPC
--------------------------------------------------
Ld. Addl. P.P. Smt. Jayshree R. Batheja
for State.
Ld. Advocate Shri A.S.Kale for
Accused.
---------------------------------------------------
.. 2/-
CNR No.MHTH060002992004 .. 2 .. Sessions Case No. 198/2004 (Judgment)
: JUDGMENT :
( Delivered on 14th day of July, 2022)
Accused are prosecuted for having committed an
offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306, r/w. Section 34
of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC') by Vishnunagar
Police Station.
2] Brief facts of the prosecution case can be stated

as under :
One Sau. Lalita Prakash Dhokare had been to
police station on 25/06/2004 and lodged report alleging
therein that her younger sister namely Yogita @ Varsha got
married with accused No. 1 Chandrashekhar Chalke as per
vedic rites on 06/07/2003. Since then Yogita started residing
with accused at Arvinda Nandan Society, Mahatma Phule
Road, Dombivali (W). However, after few days of marriage,
accused started ill-treating Yogita on account of not bringing
any amount from her parents, no articles were given in the
marriage and they were not given gold ornaments. After few
month of marriage, Yogita had been to her house and
narrated her ill-treatment. Therefore, she asked Yogita to
lodge report at police station but Yogita told her that if report
is lodged, accused would increase ill-treatment to her.
Therefore, report was not lodged.
It is further alleged that at once she alongwith
.. 3/-
her another sister Usha Chavhan had been to the house of

accused to convince them, however, accused had used oblique
words and abused them. Thereafter also accused continued
ill-treatment to Yogita. Whenever Yogita had been to her
house she was narrating her ill-treatment to her.
It is further alleged that in 2004, her husband

was hospitalized at Tata Hospital for the treatment of cancer.
Therefore, on her request Yogita had been to her house to
maintain her child. At that time she was required to stay at
their house for about 15 days. Therefore, she came to know
from Yogita that her family members started suspecting her
character, therefore, she left their house. Before eight days
Yogita had been to her house and narrated her ill-treatment
to her. Since Yogita had not visited her house from last eight
days, therefore she had sent her son for making enquiry at
the house of accused. She came to know from her son that
Yogita left their house before three days. Therefore, she
alongwith her neighbourers had been to the house of
accused. She made enquiry of Yogita with them. Her father-
in-law told them that she left their house before three days,
they had taken extensive search but she was not found. Even
then they did not lodge report to police station. Therefore,
she had been to Vishnunagar police station on 24/06/2004
and lodged missing report of Yogita.
.. 4/-
It is the prosecution case that on 22/06/2004, in

the morning Duty Station Superintendent of Dombivali
Railway had received information that one unknown lady,
age about 25 years is knocked down at 49/11, 12 kilometers
and she died due to injury sustained over her head due to
dash of unknown train. On the basis of information, accident
case came to be registered at Dombivali Railway police
station bearing No. 80/2004. Dombivali railway police had
prepared inquest panchanama, spot panchanama and
forwarded dead body for postmortem to the Government
Hospital, Kalyan. Duty Medical Officer conducted
postmortem and on request dead body was kept in mortuary.
It is the prosecution case that on 25/06/2004,

around 2.30 p.m. Vishnunagar police had called informant at
police station. Informant alongwith her brother had been to
Vishnunagar police station. Vishnunagar police told them that
dead body of one lady was found to Dombivali railway police
and they were asked to go to Dombivali railway police.
Accordingly, they went there. Dombivali railway police had
shown them ornaments of deceased. Informant identified
those ornaments were that of her sister Yogita. They came to
know that their sister died in railway accident and her dead
body is at Government Hospital, Kalyan. They went there and
saw dead body of their sister Yogita. Dead body was handed
over to them. Last rites were performed and on the basis of
.. 5/-
report Crime No. I – 87/2004 is registered against the

accused under Sections 498A, 306, r/w. Section 34 of IPC.
3] In course of investigation, supplementary

statement of informant was recorded wherein informant had
stated that she herself and her brother convinced the accused
several times but there was no change in their behaviour.
Accused had not informed to them that deceased Yogita left
their house on 22/06/2004 and not returned. Even then they
did not lodge report to the police. She further stated that
deceased Yogita was subjected to cruelty by the accused by
stating that Yogita do not have skill to prepare food. They
were also restraining the deceased Yogita to go for service.
Even accused without consent of deceased Yogita aborted her
child and this fact was also not informed to them.
4] In course of investigation, the Investigating

Officer collected enquiry papers of missing report and
accidetnal case from the concerned police station. He visited
the house of accused and prepared spot panchanama. The
statement of witnesses were recorded. Accused were arrested
except deceased Mohan Chalke, who died on 25/06/2004.
After completing investigation, accused are charge-sheeted.
5] The Ld. Magistrate found that the offence under

Section 306 of IPC is exclusively triabe by the Court of
Sessions, hence committed the case to this Court.
.. 6/-
6] Accused No. 3 had filed an application under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for discharge at Exh.22. The said
application is allowed and accused No. 3 has been
discharged. The trial proceeded further according to law.
7] My Ld. Predecessor has framed charge against the

accused vide Exh.27 for the offence punishable under
Sections 498A, 306, r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The contents of
the charge were read over and explained to the accused in
vernacular. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
to be tried.
8] Accused No. 2 Sau. Sarita Mohan Chalke reported

to be dead vide Exh.70, hence proceeding to her extent
stands abated and the matter was proceeded further
according to law.
9] In order to bring home the guilt of accused,

prosecution has examined in all ten witnesses. The details
thereof are as under :
1] Lalita Prakash Dhokare – PW.1 – Exh.33
2] Kanchan Nishikant Godbole – PW.2 – Exh.39
3] Shraddha Sudhir More – PW.3 – Exh.43
4] Usha Kishor Chavhan - PW.4 – Exh.44
5] Dr. Rahul Dnyanesh Palshetkar - PW.5 – Exh.46
6] Smt. Yogini Rahul Palshetkar - PW. 6 – Exh.63
7] Dr. Anjali Shreeram Khadilkar – PW.7 – Exh.66
.. 7/-
8] Ganesh Shivram Mangaonkar – PW.8 – Exh.72

9] Yuvraj Ramchandra Tapase – PW. 9 – Exh.81
10] Nandkumar Shrirang Dhumale – PW.10 – Exh.86
10] Besides this, prosecution is relied upon the

documentary evidence as mentioned below :
1] Missing complaint - Exh.34
2] Report - Exh.35
3] Letter to Medical Officer, Rukminibai
Hospital for conducting postmortem - Exh.73
4] Inquest panchanama - Exh.74
5] Spot panchanama - Exh.75
6] P.M.Notes - Exh.76
7] Investigation in respect of report of
missing lady - Exh.82
11] The defence of the accused as appearing from the

cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and statement
under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is that of denial and false
implication as informant and other prosecution witnesses
killed Mohan Chalke and in respect of said incident, criminal
case is registered against them under Section 302 of IPC,
therefore, in order to pressurize accused, false report is filed
against them and in collusion with police they have been
charge-sheeted. However, the accused has not adduced any
evidence in support of their defence.
.. 8/-
12] Heard the learned Addl.P.P. and learned advocate

of the accused.
13] Perused the written notes of arguments filed by

the accused at Exh.90.
14] Following points arise for my determination. I

have recorded my findings thereon for the reasons stated
as under :
SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS

1] Whether the prosecution proves
that, accused No. 1 being husband
of deceased Yogita @ Varsha and
accused No. 2 being her mother-in-
law, in furtherance of their common .. No.
intention subjected the deceased
Yogita @ Varsha with cruelty during
the period from 06/07/2003 to
22/06/2004 ?
2] Whether the prosecution proves
that, the accused in furtherance of
their common intention abetted the .. No.
deceased Yogita @ Varsha to
commit suicide ?
3] What order ? .. Accused are
acquitted
: REASONS :
15] To constitute the offence under Section 498A of

IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following ingredients :-
(1) A woman was married;
.. 9/-
(2) She was subjected to cruelty;
(3) Such cruelty consisted in -
(i) any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to her life, limb or health whether mental or
physical;
(ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing

her to meet unlawful demand for property or
valuable security or on account of failure of
such woman or any of her relations to meet the
lawful demand;
(iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her

husband or any relation of her husband"
For constituting the offence under Section

306 of IPC, the prosecution has to prove the
following ingredients:-
(1) There was suicide of a person;
(2) It was committed in consequence of

abetment by the accused.
16] In the present case, it is not in dispute that

deceased Yogita committed suicide within 7 years of the
marriage. It is true that, legislative mandate of the Section
113A of the Evidence Act is that when a woman commits
suicide within seven years of her marriage and it is shown
that her husband or any relative of her husband had
subjected her to cruelty as per the terms defined in Section
498A IPC, the Court may presume having regard to all other
circumstances of the case that such suicide has been abetted
.. 10/-
by the husband or such person. Though a presumption could

be drawn, the burden of proof of showing that such an
offence has been committed by the accused under Section
498A IPC is on the prosecution. Before the presumption may
be raised, the foundation thereof must exist. A bare reading
of Section 113A shows that to attract applicability of Section
113A, it must be shown that (i) woman has committed
suicide, (ii) such suicide has been committed within a period
of seven years from the date of her marriage, (iii) the
husband or his relatives, who are charged had subjected her
to cruelty. On existence and availability of the abovesaid
circumstances, the Court may presume that such suicide had
been abetted by her husband or by such relatives of her
husband. It is well settled that firstly, the presumption is not
mandatory, it is only permissive and secondly, before the
presumption may be drawn the Court shall have to have
regard to 'all the other circumstances of the case. A
consideration of all the other circumstances of the case may
strengthen the presumption or may dictate the conscience of
the Court to abstain from drawing the presumption.
17] In the case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal

Jaiswal and Anr, (1994) 1 SCC 73, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the
evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding
.. 11/-
whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact

induced her to end the life by committing suicide. If it
transpires to the Court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences
in domestic life quite common to the society to which the
victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences
were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit suicide, the
conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a
finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of
suicide should be found guilty.
Sections 498A and 306 IPC are independent and
constitute different offences. Though depending on the facts
and circumstances of an individual case, subjecting a woman
to cruelty may amount to an offence under Section 498A and
may also, if a course of conduct amounting to cruelty is
established leaving no other option for the woman except to
commit suicide, amount to abetment to commit suicide.
However, merely because an accused has been held liable to
be punished under Section 498A IPC it does not follow that
on the same evidence he must also and necessarily be held
guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide by the
woman concerned.
POINT NOs. 1 AND 2 :

18] It has come in the evidence of Lalita Prakash
.. 12/-
Dhokare PW.1 at Exh.33 that, deceased Yogita married with

accused No. 1 Chandrashekhar on 06/07/2003 as per vedic
rites. After marriage, Yogita started residing at the house of
accused at Arvinda Nandan Society, Mahatma Phule Road,
Dombivali (W). She was treated well for 2-3 months after the
marriage. However, thereafter deceased Yogita had been to
her house and narrated her ill-treatment to her. Deceased
Yogita told her that her in-laws and husband ill-treating her
on the ground that she had not brought gold ornaments at
the time of marriage and other grounds. Therefore, she asked
her whether complaint is to be filed against them at police
station. On that deceased Yogita told her that if complaint is
lodged, accused would increase their ill-treatment. It is better
to wait with the hope that their behaviour would change.
Thereafter, whenever deceased Yogita had been to her house,
she was narrating her ill-treatment to her. In the year 2003,
she alongwith her another sister Usha Chavan had been to
the house of accused to convince them. At that time father-in-
law of deceased Yogita requested them not to lodge
complaint against them and he apologized for the same.
Thereafter, there was no ill-treatment to the deceased for 2-3
months. But again accused started ill-treating her.
It has further come in her evidence that in the

year 2004, her husband was admitted at Tata Hospital for
treatment, at that time deceased Yogita was staying at her
.. 13/-
house to look after her children. Therefore, accused started

suspecting her character. It has further come in her evidence
that before eight days of lodging of report deceased Yogita
had been to her house and narrated her ill-treatment to her.
19] In order to corroborate her testimony, prosecution

has examined Kanchan Nishikant Godbole as PW.2 at Exh.39.
It has come in her evidence that in the year 2004, she was
Councilor of Ward No.22. Lalita (PW.1) was residing in front
of her house. Since deceased Yogita was residing in the house
of her sister Lalita, she came to know that deceased Yogita
was good by her conduct. After marriage, whenever deceased
Yogita had been to the house of her sister Lalita (PW.1) she
used to meet her. At that time she was telling her that her in-
laws are harassing her for dowry. She also told her that her
in-laws family members insisted her for abortion against her
wish.
20] Prosecution has also examined Shraddha Sudhir

More as PW.3 at Exh.43. It has come in her evidence that she
was residing at Suryawanshi Chawl, Dombivali (W). Lalita
(PW.1) was her neighbourer. During that period, deceased
Yogita was residing with her sister Lalita. Her conduct was
good. After one or two months of marriage, when deceased
Yogita had been to her sister’s house. At that time she had
made enquiry with her. At that time deceased Yogita told her
that in-laws harassing and ill-treating her. Whenever she was
.. 14/-
coming late to the house, her family members were

suspecting her character. Her family members were not
providing her sufficient food.
21] Prosecution has also examined Usha Kishor

Chavhan as PW.4 at Exh.44, another sister of deceased Yogita.
It has come in her evidence that deceased Yogita got married
on 06/07/2003. After marriage, deceased Yogita started
cohabiting with her husband. Once or twice she had been to
the house of deceased Yogita. At that time she was told by
deceased Yogita that her husband and mother-in-law abused
and assaulted her and demanded money from her. Deceased
Yogita told her that her family members had not given
ornaments and money. They were also suspecting her
character as she was working at the dispensary of Dr.
Palshetkar. Her family members had removed ceiling fan of
her room and she was not provided food. Lalita and her
brother Vinod had been to their house to convince her family
members but her family members rudly behaved with them.
22] Dr. Rahul Dnyanesh Palshetkar PW.5 at Exh.46 has

stated that he is M.D. (Ayurvedic). He has clinic at Dombivali
since 2000. Since June 2000 deceased Yogita was working in
his clinic as a compounder. Deceased Yogita got married in
2003. He came to know from the others that deceased Yogita
was subjected to ill-treatment at her matrimonial house.
Whenever she became late in the clinic, she was telling that
.. 15/-
she was ill-treated and assaulted by her family members for

dowry. On 21/06/2004, when deceased Yogita had been to
the clinic, her face was swallon and when she was asked, she
replied that she was assaulted her in matrimonial house.
23] Prosecution has also examined Smt. Yogini Rahul

Palshetkar as PW.6 at Exh.63. It has come in her evidence that
Rahul (PW.5) is her husband. Deceased Yogita was working in
their clinic. She came to know from deceased Yogita that her
husband and in-laws subjected her to cruelty as they were not
given gold ornaments at the time of marriage. On
20/06/2004, deceased Yogita had been to the clinic. Her face
was swallon. On enquiry she told her that she was ill-treated
and assaulted by her family members as they were not
provided gold ornaments and cash at the time of marriage.
24] Prosecution has examined Dr. Anjali Shreeram

Khadilkar as PW.7 at Exh.66. It has come in her evidence that
she is gynecologist. Her hospital namely Chaitnya Hospital is
at Manpada Road, Dombivali. Deceased Yogita had been to
her hospital with her husband, brother-in-law and her sister
Lalita (PW.1) in November 2003. Yogita was carrying
pregnacy of three months. Her foetus was in good condition.
However, they wanted to abort the child as child was not
aborted even after taking the pills. They were stating that
their financial condition is not sound to maintain the child.
.. 16/-
Therefore, she was operated with the consent of Yogita and

her husband.
25] The learned Addl.P.P. has submitted that the

evidence of informant is corroborated by the contents of
report and other prosecution witnesses. There is
overwhelming evidence on record to show that deceased
Yogita was subjected to cruelty by her family members on
account of not providing gold ornaments, dowry and other
articles at the time of the marriage and they were also
suspecting her character. She was not provided food. Though
the prosecution witnesses have been cross-examined by the
accused at sufficient length of time, but nothing has been
brought on record to disbelieve their testimony. Their
testimony is consistent with each other which can be relied
upon. Accused had made the life of deceased Yogita miserably
living no altrnative except to commit suicide. Therefore,
prosecution has brought on record sufficient evidence to
prove the case under Sections 498A and 306 of IPC.
26] On the other hand, the learned advocate of the

accused has submitted that prosecution is not sure on what
ground deceased Yogita was subjected to cruelty by the
accused, there was variance in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses on the ground on which deceased was
subjected to cruelty. The variance appearing in the evidence
of prosecution witnesses is sufficient to discard their
.. 17/-
testimony. In fact, there was no ill-treatment to the deceased,

therefore, the discrepancies appearing on record in the
evidence of all the prosecution witnesses which is sufficient to
discard their testimony.
27] It is further submitted that Kanchan Godbole

(PW.2) is a social worker. After the alleged incident she had
been to the house of accused alongwith mob of people. All
the accused were dragged to the cremation ground. They
were assaulted. Their faces were covered with black colour,
members of mob put cowdung in their mouth in which father
of accused No. 1 lost his life. Therefore, the offence is
registered against Kanchan Godbole and others under Section
302 of IPC. Therefore, their evidence is not reliable,
trustworthy and deserves to be discarded.
28] I have carefully gone through the evidence of

prosecution witnesses. The evidence of Lalita (PW.1) is not
consistent with her own report. She has stated that after “2-3”
months of the marriage of deceased Yogita accused started ill-
treating her. However, in the report Exh.35, it is stated that
after “ few days ” of the marriage, accused started ill-treating
the deceased Yogita. She has further stated that when she
alongwith her another sister Usha Chauhan had been to the
house of accused to convince them, the father-in-law of
deceased Yogita requested them not to lodge report and
apoloized. However, in the report it is stated that accused had
.. 18/-
used arrogant language and abused them. It has further come

in her evidence that thereafter deceased Yogita was treated
well for 2-3 months, but the contents of the report do not
support the evidence of informant on this count. Usha
Chavhan (PW.4) has not supported the evidence of Lalita
(PW.1) that she alongwith Lalita had been to the house of
accused to convince them. Therefore, the evidence of Lalita
(PW.1) does not inspire confidence that she had been to the
house of accused alongwith Usha (PW.4) to convince them.
Lalita (PW.1) nowhere whispered that she alongwith her
brother Vinod at any time convinced the accused. However, in
the report it is specifically stated that she and her brother
Vinod several times tried to convince the accused. Lalita
(PW.1) has not stated that she alongwith her brother at any
point of time had been to the house of accused to convince
them. Therefore, the evidence of Usha (PW.4) that Lalita
(PW.1) and Vinod had been to the house of accused to
convince them does not inspire confidence. Lalita (PW.1) has
admitted that the marrige was taken place as per vedic rites
and there was no agreement at the time of marriage that they
agreed to provide some gold ornaments to the accused. These
prosecution witnesses are not sure when exactly accused
started demanding gold ornaments to the deceased Yogita.
There is variance in between their evidence on the ground of
ill-treatment. According to informant Lalita (PW.1), accused
subjected the deceased Yogita with cruelty as they were not
.. 19/-
provided gold ornaments. She has not stated that deceased

was subjected to cruelty for any dowry amount. Therefore,
the evidence of Kanchan Godbole (PW.2) that deceased was
subjected to cruelty for dowry amount does not inspire
confidence. Shraddha More (PW.3) has not uttered a single
word as regards to the demand of the accused. Even Usha
(PW.4) has not stated about demand of any gold ornaments.
The inconsistency appearing in the evidence of prosecution
witnesses creares a reasonable doubt that whether deceased
Yogita was subjected by the accused with cruelty for the
alleged demand.
29] From the evidence of these witnesses it appears

that accused were suspecting character of the deceased
Yogita. However, on this point also the evidence of these
witnesses are not consistent with each other. Lalita (PW.1)
has stated that accused aborted the child of deceased Yogita
without her consent and without giving information of it to
them. However, Dr. Anjali Khadilkar (PW.7) has categorically
stated that Lalita (PW.1) was present at the time of deceased
Yogita was operated. Therefore, there appears no substance
in the evidence of Lalita (PW.1) that she was not informed
about the abortion of deceased Yogita by the accused and it
was taken place without their consent.
30] The evidence of Dr. Rahul Palshetkar (PW.5) and

Smt. Yogini Palshetkar (PW.6) appears to be the evidence of
.. 20/-
interested witnesses. Dr. Rahul Palshetkar (PW.5) is an

accused in a crime registered under Section 302 of IPC on
account of the death of the father of accused No.1.
31] In order to prove the guilt of accused under

Section 498A of IPC, there is no cogent and convincing
evidence on record to prove that deceased Yogita was
subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives of her
husband for any particular cause. In absence of cogent and
convincing evidence as regards to the cause of ill-treatment, it
can not be said that the evidence of prosecution witnesses is
of such quality which can be believed to hold that for the said
cause deceased was subjected to cruelty by the accused.
Therefore, in the given set of circumstances it can not be said
that prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
accused subjected the deceased Yogita with cruelty.
32] From the evidence of prosecution witnesses it

reveals that deceased Yogita left her matrimonial house on
22/06/2004 in the morning. Lalita (PW.1) has stated that
neither the accused informed them that deceased Yogita had
not returned to the house nor lodged the report in that
regard. However, the report (Exh.34) reveals that when
informant and her neighbourers had been to the house of
accused, her father-in-law told them that from last three days
they are taking search of deceased Yogita but she was not
found, therefore, they inform this fact to the police.
.. 21/-
Therefore, the evidence of Lalita (PW.1) on this point does

not inspire confidence that accused had not taken any steps
after deceased Yogita did not return to the house. There is
nothing on record to show that deceased Yogita was abetted
by the accused to commit suicide. On perusal of postmortem
report and inquest panchanama, there appears no external
injuries on the person of the deceased Yogita except head
injury. Thus, there are no circumstances on record to show
that soon before the death of the deceased Yogita, accused
assaulted her, therefore, she committed suicide. There is
nothing on record to show under what circumstances
deceased died. Therefore, it can not be said that accused
abetted the deceased Yogita to commit suicide. In absence of
evidence as regards to the ill-treatment and alleged cruelty, it
can not be said that prosecution has proved essential
ingredients of Section 306 of IPC.
33] Prosecution has examined Ganesh Shivram

Mangaonkar as (PW.8) at Exh.72. It has come in his evidence
that on 22/06/2004, he had given letter (Exh.73) to
Rukminibai Government Hospital, Kalyan for conducting
postmortem on the dead body of one female. Yuvraj
Ramchandra Tapase (PW.9) at Exh.81 has deposed that on
25/06/2004, he was attached to Vishnunagar police station.
One missing case No. 60/2004 was registered. Enquiry of the
said missing case was given to him. The said missing report
.. 22/-
was lodged by the sister of missing lady. As per usual

procedure, he had given information to various police
stations. The said report is placed on record at Exh.82. The
evidence of both these witnesses is formal one, hence, need
no more discussion.
34] Nandkumar Shrirang Dhumale (PW.10) is an

Investigating Officer. He has deposed that on 22/06/2004, he
was attached to Dombivali railway police station as PSI. On
that day one lady was died at Tharkurli Railway Station due
to hit by the railway. He visited the place of incident,
prepared the inquest panchanama and spot panchanama
(Exhs.74 and 75) respectively. Dead body was forwarded to
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation Hospital. On
25/06/2004, the brother and sister of the deceased lady had
been to police station and made enquiry of deceased. They
were sent to the hospital. They identified the dead body of
the deceased. Since in this connection crime was registered at
Vishnunagar police station, all the investigation papers of
missing case were forwarded to Vishnunagar police station.
Thus, from the evidence of this witness it reveals that
deceased died on 22/06/2004 due to hit by railway. The
contents of the inquest panchanama and spot panchanama
have not been disputed by the defence. The evidence of this
witness is also formal one, hence, need no more discussion.
Consequently, both the points are answered accordingly.
.. 23/-
POINT NO. 3 :
35] In view of my finding to the aforesaid points in

the negative, accused deserves to be acquitted. Hence, in
answer to this point, I proceed to pass the following order.
: ORDER :
1] Accused No. 1 viz. Chandrashekhar Mohan Chalke

is hereby acquitted under Section 235(1) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure of the offences
punishable under Sections 498A, 306, r/w.
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
2] Proceeding is already abated against the accused

No. 2 viz. Sau. Sarita Mohan Chalke.
3] Bail bonds of the accused No. 1 Chandrashekhar

Mohan Chalke stands cancelled.
4] Accused No. 1 Chandrashekhar Mohan Chalke is

directed to furnish a fresh P. B. & S.B. of
Rs.15,000/- ( Rs. Fifteen Thousand only), in
compliance with the provisions of Section 437(A)
of Cr.P.C.
Proceeding is closed.
Sd/-
Kalyan. (S.B.Kachare)
Date : 14/07/2022. Addl. Sessions Judge, Kalyan.
.. /-

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Display PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CNR No.MHTH060002992004 .. 1 .. Sessions Case No.

MHTH060002992004 Received on : 18/08/2004

IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KALYAN

Sessions Case No. 198/2004 Exh. No.

Offence punishable under Sections

2] Brief facts of the prosecution case can be stated

It is further alleged that at once she alongwith

her another sister Usha Chavhan had been to the house of

It is further alleged that in 2004, her husband

It is the prosecution case that on 22/06/2004, in

It is the prosecution case that on 25/06/2004,

report Crime No. I – 87/2004 is registered against the

3] In course of investigation, supplementary

4] In course of investigation, the Investigating

5] The Ld. Magistrate found that the offence under

6] Accused No. 3 had filed an application under

7] My Ld. Predecessor has framed charge against the

8] Accused No. 2 Sau. Sarita Mohan Chalke reported

9] In order to bring home the guilt of accused,

8] Ganesh Shivram Mangaonkar – PW.8 – Exh.72

10] Besides this, prosecution is relied upon the

5] Spot panchanama - Exh.75

11] The defence of the accused as appearing from the

12] Heard the learned Addl.P.P. and learned advocate

13] Perused the written notes of arguments filed by

14] Following points arise for my determination. I

SR.NO. POINTS FINDINGS

15] To constitute the offence under Section 498A of

(1) A woman was married;

(2) She was subjected to cruelty;

(3) Such cruelty consisted in -

(i) any lawful conduct as was likely to drive such

(ii) harm to such woman with a view to coercing

(iii) the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her

For constituting the offence under Section

(1) There was suicide of a person;

(2) It was committed in consequence of

16] In the present case, it is not in dispute that

by the husband or such person. Though a presumption could

17] In the case of State of West Bengal v. Orilal

whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact

POINT NOs. 1 AND 2 :

Dhokare PW.1 at Exh.33 that, deceased Yogita married with

It has further come in her evidence that in the

house to look after her children. Therefore, accused started

19] In order to corroborate her testimony, prosecution

20] Prosecution has also examined Shraddha Sudhir

coming late to the house, her family members were

21] Prosecution has also examined Usha Kishor

22] Dr. Rahul Dnyanesh Palshetkar PW.5 at Exh.46 has

she was ill-treated and assaulted by her family members for

23] Prosecution has also examined Smt. Yogini Rahul

24] Prosecution has examined Dr. Anjali Shreeram

Therefore, she was operated with the consent of Yogita and

25] The learned Addl.P.P. has submitted that the

26] On the other hand, the learned advocate of the

testimony. In fact, there was no ill-treatment to the deceased,

27] It is further submitted that Kanchan Godbole

28] I have carefully gone through the evidence of

used arrogant language and abused them. It has further come

provided gold ornaments. She has not stated that deceased

29] From the evidence of these witnesses it appears