SANDIP EKNATH DHANGARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:43078


                                                                      CrAppeal-381-2016
                                                   -1-

                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2016

                 Sandip Eknath Dhangar
                 Age: 40 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
                 R/o : Bhaver, Tq.Shirpur, District Dhule.         ….Appellant
                                                             (Orig. Accused No.1)
                                   Versus

                 State of Maharashtra                        ….Respondent
                                                 …..
                 Mr.Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate for Appellant.
                 Mr.V.V.Jahagirdar, APP for Respondent.
                                                 …..

                                          CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

                                          Reserved on        : 22-09-2026
                                          Pronounced on      : 23-09-2026

                 JUDGMENT :


                 1.    Appellant challenges judgment and order of conviction dated

                 18-05-2016 passed by learned District Judge-4 and Additional

                 Sessions Judge, Dhule in Sessions Case No.35 of 2014 recording guilt

                 for offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).



                 2.    In trial Court, present appellant/accused no.1 and accused

                 Nos.2 to 5, his family members and in-laws of deceased Suvarna faced

                 prosecution for commission of offence under Sections 306, 498-A,

                 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Case of prosecution was
                                                     CrAppeal-381-2016
                                  -2-

rested on evidence of six witnesses. On appreciating oral and

documentary evidence, learned trial Court was pleased to acquit all

accused from charges under Sections 306, 504 and 506 of the IPC.

Accused Nos.2 to 5 were also acquitted from charge under Section

498-A of the IPC, but appellant/accused no.1 husband alone was held

guilty for offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. Hence, instant

appeal by said convict husband.



3.    Learned counsel for appellant would point out that, there is

false implication. According to him, prosecution has miserably failed

to prove that there was any mental or physical cruelty so as to attract

offence under Section 498-A of the IPC. He pointed out that, infact on

same set of evidence, accused Nos.2 to 5 are already acquitted, but

accused No.1 husband alone is singled out and convicted without

assigning any plausible and sound reason. He pointed out that, infact

all accused including appellant husband are already acquitted from

other charges under Sections 306, 504, 506 of the IPC.        He very

emphatically submitted that, findings and reasons of learned trial

Court for recording guilt of accused no.1 are primarily based on

assumptions, presumptions and surmises and as such, it is his

submission that such judgment cannot be allowed to be sustained.
                                                      CrAppeal-381-2016
                                  -3-

4.    Learned APP would justify the order of conviction by submitting

that prosecution evidence points out to the involvement of appellant

husband and therefore, learned trial Court has rightly convicted him

for charge under Section 498-A of the IPC.



5.    As stated above, prosecution case is based on testimony of six

witnesses. Admittedly, though there was charges under Sections 498-

A, 306, 504, 506 of the IPC, learned trial Court has acquitted all

accused including appellant from charges under Sections 306, 504,

506 of the IPC. Appellant/accused No.1 husband is alone convicted

for charge under Section 498-A of the IPC. Thus, it is to be seen

whether trial Court was justified in convicting husband alone for the

said charge by acquitting other accused from all charges.



6.    PW1 Dr.Kailassingh Kamalsingh Rajpur seems to be Autopsy

Surgeon, who conducted post mortem on deceased Suvarna Sandip

Dhangar i.e. wife of appellant, who had sustained burns and had died

“due to shock due to cardio-respiratory failure as a result of 100%

extensive deep burn injury”. As stated above, for charge of abetment

to suicide, including appellant all accused are already acquitted by the

learned trial Court and there is no challenge by the State against the

said acquittal.
                                                     CrAppeal-381-2016
                                  -4-

7.    PW2 Sudarshan Baliram Dhangar seems to be brother of

deceased and he in his evidence at Exhibit 53 has stated that his

sister, after marriage, had a daughter and a son and she was residing

with in-laws.   According to him, after treating his sister well for

initial period, accused subjected her to cruelty. According to him,

when his sister was pregnant for third time, her in-laws started

harassing her as they did not want third child and according to him,

all accused demanded Rs.1,00,000/- for upbringing of the prospective

third child. According to him, one month prior to her death, his sister

had come to his place and had reported about above demand by

accused and she had allegedly said to him that, if they wanted to see

her alive, they must arrange Rs.1,00,000/-. That, on 10-09-2013, a

phone call was received about his sister to be serious and when they

reached village Bhawer, they come across her dead body. Thus, he

filed complaint Exhibit 54.

      During cross-examination, he admitted that accused No.1 has

his own house as well as agricultural land and that his economic

condition was better than them. He admitted that, he had been to his

sister’s place 5-6 months prior to her death. He is unable to state

when his sister made grievance to him about ill treatment and

demand by accused.      He admitted that, when he gave complaint,

other relatives were around him. He admitted that, he did not lodge
                                                          CrAppeal-381-2016
                                      -5-

complaint on 10th, 11th, 12th September, 2013.

       Omissions are brought in paragraph 15 to the extent of proper

treatment for initial period and subsequently, cruelty being mated out

to her, accused raising demand of Rs.1,00,000/- for upbringing of the

would be born child, that one month prior to incident of death of his

sister, she had come to Javkheda and asked them to arrange

Rs.1,00,000/-. Thus, these are material omissions. Consequently, his

version is apparently improvized.



8.     PW3 Pandit Ramchandra Dhangar is maternal uncle of

deceased and PW2 informant and he deposed that, accused Nos.1, 2,

3 were harassing his niece because she was pregnant with third child.

However, he attributes demand of Rs.1,00,000/- to accused Nos.1

and 2 and not to rest of accused. However, he claims to have learnt

from deceased about harassment when she came to her parental

house but in cross-examination, he is unable to state when was the

last visit of his niece to the village.

       Material omissions are brought in his cross-examination in

paragraph 8 to the extent of accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 harassing

deceased because she was pregnant with the third child and accused

Nos.1 and 2 harassing, that deceased had come to her parental house

and   informed     about    demand        and   asking   them   to   arrange
                                                       CrAppeal-381-2016
                                    -6-

Rs.1,00,000/- if they want to see her alive.     Therefore, there are

material omissions and improvized version.



9.    PW4 Budha Sukdeo Dhangar, an acquaintance of accused and

informant, has attributed mental and physical harassment to all

accused for demand of money. Thus, unlike above two witnesses, he

is not deposing about accused insisting for Rs.1,00,000/- for

upbringing of prospective child and moreover, he attributes

allegations to all accused.

      He too while under cross-examination unable to state when he

learnt about demand and harassment.         He admitted that accused

Nos.4 and 5 stayed at Nashik.

      Material omission is brought in his cross-examination in

paragraph 10 about brother of deceased convincing her about his

inability to raise Rs.1,00,000/-.



10.   Rest of the witnesses are PW5 Dilip Vithoba Gangurde (API) is

the Investigating Officer and       PW6 Ashok Madan Dabhade is the

Police official, who carried out inquest panchanama.



11.   Thus, what is discerned from above appreciation of evidence is

that sweeping allegations are made against all accused for subjecting
                                                      CrAppeal-381-2016
                                  -7-

deceased to cruelty, but neither of them has stated about form and

nature of cruelty.    Omnibus allegations are levelled against all

accused. Testimony of informant is not corroborated by remaining

witnesses and they are found to be at variance.              What law

contemplates to attract charge of Section 498-A of the IPC is

consistent and persistent demand followed by mental and physical

cruelty. This crucial aspect is patently missing in above evidence.

Testimonies of witnesses like informant and maternal uncle are full of

material omissions and they have improvized their versions.



12.   As pointed out by learned counsel for appellant, on the same

set of evidence, learned trial Court has acquitted accused Nos.2 to 5

from all charge including Section 498-A of the IPC and only appellant

husband is singled out and held guilty.       Learned trial Court, in

paragraph 65, has surprisingly mentioned that “accused Nos.2 to 5

deserve benefit of doubt but same cannot be extended to accused

No.1 husband as demand of money can be assumed to be from him”.

Even in paragraph 57 of the judgment, as pointed out, learned trial

Court has itself recorded a finding that sweeping allegations are made

against all accused persons. When such was the findings recorded by

trial Court, it was expected to assign sound reasons for recording guilt

of accused No.1 husband alone by acquitting rest of the accused on
                                                       CrAppeal-381-2016
                                    -8-

same set of evidence on which he is held guilty.



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

are acquitted, then other accused also deserve similar treatment and

law to this extent has been propounded in the case of Javed Shaukat

Ali Qureshi v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/1012/2023 as well as in

the case of Harbans Singh v. State of U.P. and Others, (1982) 2 SCC

101 and the relevant paragraph for ready reference is reproduced 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.”


14.    For above reasons, even present appellant ought to have been

given benefit of doubt by trial Court like other accused. Applying the

above law, he too deserves benefit of doubt and therefore, appellant

succeeds. Accordingly, following order is passed :
                                                       CrAppeal-381-2016
                                  -9-

                                ORDER

I.    The appeal is allowed.


II.   The conviction awarded to the appellant Sandip Eknath Dhangar
      by learned District Judge-4 and Additional Sessions Judge,
      Dhule, in Sessions Case No.35 of 2014 under Section 498-A of
      the Indian Penal Code, on 18-05-2016 stands quashed and set
      aside.


III. The appellant Sandip Eknath Dhangar stands acquitted of the
      offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal
      Code.


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