SURYAKANT S/O. RAJARAM RAULWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:46575


                                                                        CrAppeal-38-2018
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2018

                 Suryakant S/o. Rajaram Raulwar
                 Age: 33 years, Occu.: Business,
                 R/o. Talegaon at present Chinchala,
                 Tq.Umri, District Nanded.                   ….Appellant
                                                             (Orig. Accused No.1)
                             Versus

                 The State of Maharashtra                    ….Respondent

                                                 …..
                 Mr.Upendra B.Bilolikar, Advocate for Appellant.
                 Mr.G.O.Wattamwar, APP for Respondent.
                                                …..

                                          CORAM : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                          Reserved on        : 05-10-2026
                                          Pronounced on      : 06-10-2026
                 JUDGMENT :

                 1.    In this appeal, there is challenge to judgment and order of

                 conviction of appellant/original accused no.1 for offence under

                 Section 498-A, 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), passed by learned

                 Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar on 04-01-2018 in Sessions Case

                 No.30 of 2012.


                                      PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

                 2.    In brief case of prosecution in trial Court was that, accused no.1

                 Surykant was married to deceased Sangita and after marriage, she
                                                      CrAppeal-38-2018
                                 -2-

went to cohabit with accused and in-laws. A daughter was born out

of said wedlock. Since two years prior to the death of Sangita,

accused subjected her to physical and mental cruelty in the back drop

of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for clothes shop. She was also driven out

of the house, but subsequently on intervention of relatives, she had

come to cohabit with accused, however, ill treatment continued for

above demand. Finally, getting fed up of the same, Sangita consumed

poison on 02-03-2012 and she died.

      On the report of PW3 Dashrath, father of deceased, crime was

registered, it was duly investigated by PW10 Pralhad Susar

(Investigating Officer) and accused No.1 husband and in-laws were

chargesheeted and tried vide above sessions case.

      Learned trial Judge vide judgment and order dated 04-01-2018,

acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5 from charge under Sections 498-A, 306

read with Section 34 of the IPC , but appellant/original accused No.1

husband alone came to be convicted for offence under Section 498-A

and 306 of the IPC.

      The said judgment and order is subject matter of appeal before

this Court.

                           SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellant :

3.     Learned counsel for appellant would submit that, there is false
                                                     CrAppeal-38-2018
                                  -3-

implication. According to him, though entire family was roped in and

tried, accused Nos.2 to 5 are already acquitted from all the charges

and only appellant husband is held guilty.     He pointed out that,

though case of prosecution is rested on testimony of ten witnesses,

crucial evidence is of PW3 Dashrath Linganna Dasewar and PW4

Sheshabai Dashrath Dasewar, who are parents of deceased, but

according to him, they are not consistent. That, there is no iota of

evidence on the point of form and nature of cruelty. That, general

and vague allegations are raised against all accused. He would point

out that, on same set of evidence accused Nos.2 to 5 are acquitted,

but accused No.1 husband is convicted. According to him, there is no

evidence to show that there was any abetment to commit suicide,

however, learned trial Court accepted the case of prosecution as only

against accused No.1 husband and therefore, he prays to allow the

appeal by acquitting appellant husband also. He seeks reliance on the

Judgments of this Court passed in the case of Vinod v. The State of

Maharashtra on 09-09-2026 and in the case of Dnyaneshwar

Rangnath Salve v. The State of Maharashtra on 27-02-2025.



On behalf of respondent State :

4.    In answer to above, learned APP, while justifying judgment and

order of conviction, would submit that there is cogent and convincing
                                                       CrAppeal-38-2018
                                  -4-

evidence about cruelty being inflicted to deceased in the backdrop of

demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for clothes shop.           That, prosecution

witnesses including parents of deceased have testified to that extent.

He pointed out that, there are injuries noticed on the person of

deceased and there is inquest panchanama to that extent.         Thus,

according to him, appellant husband being solely responsible for said

injuries, he is rightly convicted by the learned trial Court. For above

reasons, he prays to maintain judgment and order of conviction

passed by the learned trial Court by dismissing the appeal.



               SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF EVIDENCE

5.    Re-appreciated the evidence. Case of prosecution is based on

evidence of PW1 Tatewad, pancha to spot panchanama Exhibit 40;

PW2 Mudgalwar, pancha to spot panchanama Exhibit 42 and seizure

to container; PW3 Dashrath Linganna Dasewar, father of deceased;

PW4 Sheshabai Dashrath Dasewar, mother of deceased; PW5 Balaji

Madhavrao Shinde, a neighbour and acquaintance of informant; PW6

Shobha Kadam, carrier; PW7 Kishnabai Shinde, acquaintance of

informant; PW8 Dr.Maroti Dake, Autopsy Surgeon; PW9 Aruna

Srivastav, carrier and PW10 Pralhad Govind Susar, Investigating

Officer.

      Relations inter se between deceased and accused persons are
                                                      CrAppeal-38-2018
                                 -5-

not disputes. Further there is no dispute that deceased Sangita died

due to consumption of Zink Phosphide, rat killer.

       Going by the case of prosecution and nature of accusations,

evidence of PW3 Dashrath and PW4 Sheshabai, parents of deceased

as well as neighbour and acquaintance PW5 Balaji and PW7 Kishnabai

assumes importance and the same is analyzed at the outset.



6.    PW3 Dashrath, father of deceased, at Exhibit 44 stated that his

daughter was married to accused No.1, who was doing tailoring

business and also selling clothes. According to him, for initial two

years, his daughter was treated properly. According to him, in-laws

of his daughter resided together. In his evidence, he deposed that

husband beat his daughter and insisted her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- for

his clothes shop whereas in-laws harassed her. That, his daughter

was sent home at his place and she stayed there for a year and after

indulgence of relatives, she was taken back. He claims that, he and

his wife visited her and at that time, deceased told that husband beat

her for demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for clothes shop.       That, in-laws

abused her in filthy language.    That, in March 2012, news of his

daughter being admitted in Rural Hospital was received. She was

then taken to a Private Hospital at Nanded, but she expired and so he

lodged report Exhibit 45.
                                                    CrAppeal-38-2018
                                -6-

      While under cross-examination, he denied that he was

knowing accused persons prior to marriage of his daughter.       He

admitted that, he accepted the marriage proposal even after

considering his economical condition.     He admitted that, after

marriage of daughter, accused persons purchased a plot and also

constructed a house at Chinchala. He admitted that, occasionally, he

and his wife used to meet their daughter at Chinchala. He denied

that, during lifetime of Sangita, business of accused had developed

and they had three clothes shops and one tailoring shop.          In

paragraph 10, he admitted that accused have Cut Piece Center at

Umari but denied knowing another shop being started by name

Rajaramdeo Kapad Dukan and Saree Center at Umari or about

opening a shop namely Rajkamal Kids Wear and Dresses at Umari

and that accused persons had in all four shops. He is unable to give

names of 4-5 persons, who accompanied him to the Police Station.

Rest is all denial.



7.    PW4 Sheshabai, wife of PW3 deposed that, for about one year

her daughter leave happy married life. According to her, while she

was residing at Chinchala, at that time, it was insisted Sangita to

bring Rs.1,00,000/-. According to her, accused were not providing

food to her daughter. That, accused used to beat and abuse her in
                                                      CrAppeal-38-2018
                                  -7-

filthy language and whenever she came for festivals to their house,

she informed about it. She also deposed that, two years prior to

incident, accused beat her daughter and drove her out of house and

so she came to their house and stayed for a year and thereafter, on

indulgence of relatives and respected persons, she was sent back to

Chinchala. According to her, thereafter, for one year, they did not

send her to their home and therefore, during such period, she and her

husband used to go to Chinchala to meet her and according to her, at

such time, deceased wept and informed that accused persons are not

giving food to her and they abused her in filthy language. Then she

deposed about accused insisting her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- for clothes

shop.    Thereafter, she deposed about news of her admission in

hospital and then taking her to Private Hospital.

        In cross-examination, she denied knowing accused prior to

marriage of her daughter.       According to her, prior to marriage,

accused were having tailoring shop. She stated that, after marriage,

for 2-3 years, her daughter resided with accused at Talegaon. She

identified photographs of new clothes shops shown to her and she

admitted that she and her husband appearing in photographs Exhibit

51. She also admitted that, as Talegaon was away from Umari and as

accused were unable to look after shop properly so they purchased a

plot at Chinchala and constructed a house thereon. She expressed
                                                      CrAppeal-38-2018
                                   -8-

ignorance whether accused were having four shops and a car. She

answered that, when her daughter was staying with her for one year,

at that time her husband alone visited their house and no report was

lodged at Police Station. Rest is all denial.



8.      PW5 Balaji, who was knowing PW3, as well as accused, has

deposed at Exhibit 52 that accused were having tailoring shop at

Umari and thereafter they opened a clothes shop in said tailoring

shop.    According to him, initially matrimonial life of Sangita and

accused No.1 at Chinchala was happy, but thereafter, harassment

begun. According to him, accused persons beat Sangita and abused

her in filthy language. According to him, deceased informed him the

reason behind beating was over the demand of accused persons. He

claims to have given understanding to accused in the times of quarrel.

He stated that, he learnt that deceased had come to stay with parents

and again went back to leave with in-laws and then taken to Rural

Hospital and a telephone message received about her death.

        While under cross-examination, he also admitted that accused

purchased a plot and constructed a house. Omission is brought about

deceased informing him regarding harassment to her or beating her.

Rest is all denial.
                                                       CrAppeal-38-2018
                                  -9-

9.    PW7 Kishnabai, who claims to be knowing accused as well

deceased deposed at Exhibit 56 that, some days after marriage, there

was happy matrimonial life of deceased and accused No.1. According

to her, thereafter in-laws, husband and other family members beat

Sangita and reason behind beating was demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for

purchase of clothes shop.     She claims to have gone to house of

accused to rescue deceased from beating. That one year after the

marriage, parents of Sangita came to Chinchala and understanding

was given to accused. Then she deposed about deceased consuming

pesticides.

      While under cross-examination, she admitted that only when

accused came to reside at Chinchala, she got to know deceased. She

admitted that, she had not informed parents of Sangita regarding

harassment caused to her by husband. She expressed her ignorance

about accused having shops. Rest is all denial.



                    ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION

10.   Thus, what can be culled out from above discussed evidence of

parents i.e. PW3 Dashrath and PW4 Sheshabai are concerned,

apparently they are not consistent. PW3 Dashrath claims that for two

years matrimonial life of his daughter was good, but contrary to it, his

own wife i.e. mother of deceased PW4 Sheshabai states that after
                                                      CrAppeal-38-2018
                                  -10-

marriage, for about one year, there was happy matrimonial life of

deceased. Whatever is stated by PW4 Sheshabai regarding Sangita

being not provided food, or kept starved or beaten and abused in

filthy language has not been stated by PW3 Dashrath, her husband

and father of deceased. Her version is also distinct from that of PW3

Dashrath about deceased weeping and informing about she being not

provided food. PW3 Dashrath speaks of demand of Rs.1,00,000/- by

husband, but contrary to it, said demand of Rs.1,00,000/- is

attributed to all accused by PW4 Sheshabai.      Therefore, witnesses

PW3 and PW4, who are husband and wife and parents of deceased,

are not lending support to each other and rather inconsistent.



11.   As regards to evidence of PW5 Balaji and PW7 Kishnabai are

concerned, PW5 merely speaks that, initially there was happy

matrimonial life of accused no.1 and deceased at Chinchala. He also

makes vague allegations by stating that harassment started to

deceased and accused beat her and abused her in filthy language.

PW3 Informant father has attributed beating to husband and not to

other accused. As regards to statement of PW5 that he learnt from

deceased the reason of beating was demand, which is apparently

vague and it is found to be an omission as he admitted that his

statement is silent to such extent.
                                                       CrAppeal-38-2018
                                 -11-

      Likewise PW7 Kishnabai also states that for some days after

marriage, there was happy matrimonial life and she also raises

omnibus allegations that in-laws, husband and even other family

members beat Sangita after insisting her to bring Rs.1,00,000/- from

her parents. Though she deposed that she went to recuse of deceased

from beating, in cross-examination, she is unable to state when she

went and she also admitted that she did not inform to parents of

Sangita about any such beating. Therefore, her evidence, is not safe

for reliance.



12.   Consequently, here, there are allegations of demand of

Rs.1,00,000/- against all accused, but PW3 informant, father of

deceased attributes beating only to husband. When exactly beating

took place has not come on record in the evidence of any of the

witnesses i.e. PW3 Dashrath, PW4 Sheshabai, PW5 Balaji and PW7

Kishnabai.



13.   For attracting charge of Section 498-A of the IPC, it is essential

for prosecution to demonstrate that there was physical cruelty and

mental cruelty in the backdrop of demand of money. Here, as stated

above, testimony of witnesses discussed above are not consistent as to

when exactly demand was raised. They are at variance about since
                                                       CrAppeal-38-2018
                                 -12-

when demand was raised.



14.   Learned APP would strenuously submit that there were injury

marks noticed on the person of deceased at the time of inquest.

However, there is no evidence that on 02-03-2012 there was any

beating to deceased. PW5 Balaji, a neighbour of the accused has not

stated about any beating to deceased on 02-03-2012 or immediately

previous to it. He merely claims that deceased informed him that

there was beating over demand and that when there was quarrel in

the house of accused, he used to go and give understanding to them.

However, his testimony is silent about any quarrel or beating on

02-03-2012 or in proximity to it.       Further, though he stated that

Sangita informed him about harassment, he is unable to assign any

reason why it was no so appearing in his statement.

      Apparently PW7 Kishnabai is also silent about any episode of

beating on 02-03-2012.



15.   In the post mortem conducted by PW8 Dr.Maroti Digambarrao

Dake, though he had noticed ante mortem injuries, he has given its

age to be 3-5 days and it is not the case of prosecution that there was

cruelty and beating to deceased for 3-5 days causing abrasion injuries

on person of deceased. Injury No.1 is infected wound over right infra
                                                       CrAppeal-38-2018
                                    -13-

scapular region, but Autopsy Surgeon has not opined that said injury

was possibly a beating mark. In the light of such evidence, it can not

be for sure said that husband beat deceased and caused above injury.



16.   In paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment, learned trial Court

has held that evidence against husband of Sangita is specific but

evidence against in-laws is vague. Learned trial Court has observed

that, when other accused were running clothes shop, husband of

deceased devilishly think of starting separate clothes business and for

that purpose he “might have” insisted Sangita to bring Rs.1,00,000/-

from her parents and finally, learned trial Court has held that

prosecution has proved offence of Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC

against husband. Apparently, above inference is on assumption and

presumption and cannot be allowed to be sustained.



17.   Here, it is emerging that on above evidence itself, learned trial

Court has acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5, however, accused No.1

husband alone held guilty by applying same set of evidence. Law is

fairly settled that this is not permissible.



18.   Law is fairly settled that, on same set of evidence, if co-accused

is acquitted then other accused also deserves similar treatment on the
                                                           CrAppeal-38-2018
                                    -14-

ground of parity. On this proposition, reliance can be placed on the

judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Javed Shaukat Ali

Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1012/2023 wherein earlier

judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Harbans Singh v. State

of U.P. and Others reported in (1982) 2 SCC 101, was referred to and

it was observed in paragraph 15 as under:


    “When there is similar or identical evidence of eye
    witnesses against two accused by ascribing them the same
    or similar role, the court cannot convict one accused and
    acquit the other. In such a case, the cases of both accused
    will be governed by the principle of parity. This principle
    means that the criminal court should decide like cases alike,
    and in such cases, the court cannot make a distinction
    between        two   accused,     which     will   amount      to
    discrimination.”

        Similarly, in another judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Yogarani v. State by the Inspector of Police, reported in

MANU/SC/1046/2024, the Hon’ble Apex Court has referred to the

judgment of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi i.e. above judgment and

reproduced paragraph 15, which is reproduced in aforesaid

paragraph.


        Likewise, again the Hon’ble Apex Court in a recent judgment of

Vaddi     Ratnam    v.   State   of    Andhra    Pradesh     reported   in
                                                      CrAppeal-38-2018
                                 -15-

MANU/SC/1344/2025 in paragraph 9 reiterated the above law.



19.    Conviction of appellant husband for offence under Sections

498-A and 306 of the IPC on assumptions drawn by trial Court cannot

be allowed to be sustained.    Here, deceased committed suicide by

consuming rat kill poison, but there is no evidence that accused No.1

husband abetted the said consumption. It is fairly settled position

that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Here,

it has not so happened and therefore, even conviction of appellant

husband alone by acquitting rest of the accused by applying same set

of evidence, cannot be allowed to be sustained. Consequently, appeal

deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, following order is passed.



                               ORDER

I.    The Criminal Appeal is allowed.

II.   The conviction awarded to the appellant Suryakant S/o. Rajaram
      Raulwar by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhokar in
      Sessions Case No.30 of 2012 for offence under Sections 498-A
      and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, on 04-01-2018, stands
      quashed and set aside.

III. The appellant Suryakant S/o. Rajaram Raulwar stands acquitted
      of the offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the
      Indian Penal Code.
                                                       CrAppeal-38-2018
                                  -16-


IV. The bail bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.

V.    Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellant after
      the statutory period.

VI. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order
      regarding disposal of muddemal.




                                          [ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]
SPT