STATE OF MAHAversusASHOK PRAKASH SURESH and ORS

2026:BHC-AUG:36087-DB

                                                                    412.2004APPEAL



                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                               CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 412 OF 2004

                   The State of Maharashtra
                   (Through Police Sub-Inspector)
                   Police Station, Vaijapur,
                   Dist. Aurangabad.
                                                             ... APPELLANT

                               VERSUS

                   1.     Ashok S/o Prakash Suresh
                          Age : 30 years, Occ : Service,
                          R/o Sutargalli, Ta. Vaijapur,
                          Dist. Aurangabad.

                   2.     Yogesh S/o Prakash Suresh
                          Age : 22 years, Occ : Private Service,
                          R/o as above

                   3.     Prakash S/o Keshav Suresh,
                          Age : 52 years, Occ : Service,
                          R/o As above.

                   4.    Vatchhalabai W/o Prakash Suresh
                         Age : 50 years, Occ : Household,
                         R/o as above.
                                                           ... RESPONDENTS
                                                 ...
                   Mr. V.V. Jahagirdar, APP for the appellant/State
                   Ms. Siddhi Kothari h/f Mr.S.G. Ladda, Advocate for
                   respondent nos.1 to 4.
                                                 ...

                          CORAM               : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE &
                                                VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.

                          RESERVED ON   : 03.08.2026
                          PRONOUNCED ON   17.08.2026




                                                                                1
                                                    412.2004APPEAL



JUDGMENT [Per Vaishali Patil-Jadhav, J.] :



.            This is an appeal impugning the judgment and

order dated 10.03.2004 passed by the learned Ad-hoc

Additional    Sessions     Judge,    Aurangabad      (hereinafter

referred to as “the learned Trial Court”), acquitting the

present respondents (original accused Nos. 1 to 4) in

Sessions Case No. 154 of 2002 of the offences punishable

under Sections 498-A, 304-B read with Section 34 of the

Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”).


2.           The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows :-


             The    marriage    of   deceased      Rupali   with

respondent No. 1 - Ashok was solemnized about three years

prior to the date of incident. After marriage, the deceased

started residing with the respondents (original accused

Nos. 1 to 4), namely, Ashok Prakash Suresh (husband),

Yogesh Prakash Suresh (brother-in-law), Prakash Keshav

Suresh (father-in-law) and Vatchhalabai Prakash Suresh

(mother-in-law), at their residence at Vaijapur.


             At the time of settlement of marriage, the

informant Suresh Baburao Gadhekar i.e. father of the

                                                                2
                                               412.2004APPEAL



deceased had agreed to give an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and

a gold ring weighing one tola, as dowry, to respondent No.

1. However, at the time of marriage, he could only pay Rs.

30,000/-, and had assured to pay the remaining Rs.

20,000/- after one year.


           It is alleged that the deceased was initially

treated well by the respondents, but thereafter, all of them

started beating and subjecting her to cruelty for bringing

the remaining dowry amount and would often drive her out

of the house. The deceased used to inform the informant

about the cruelty meted out to her by the respondents. She

would urge him to pay the remaining dowry amount at the

earliest as the respondents were subjecting her to cruelty

on that count.


           About one year prior to the incident, the

deceased had come to her parental home and informed that

she was driven out of the house with an ultimatum from

the respondents to return with the remaining dowry

amount. The informant then went to the house of the

respondents and handed over Rs. 10,000/- to respondent

No.1. He thereafter left the deceased at the residence of


                                                           3
                                               412.2004APPEAL



respondents after assuring them to pay the remaining

amount of Rs. 10,000/- soon. Again after six months, the

deceased came to the informant and informed him that the

respondents had driven her out of the house for bringing

the remaining amount of Rs. 10,000/-. However, he sent

her back with an assurance that he would pay the

remaining amount in due course. Again on the occasion of

Rakhi Pournima when the deceased had been to Nashik at

her parental house and also on 13.10.2001 when she met

the informant, she told him about the cruelty meted out to

her by the respondents on account of the demand of Rs.

10,000/-.


            Thereafter, on 20.10.2001, between 10.30 p.m.

and 11.30 p.m., respondent No. 2 informed the informant

over phone, that the deceased had sustained burns while

cooking due to the stove catching fire, and that her

condition was critical. By the time the informant and his

relatives reached Vaijapur, the deceased had already

succumbed to her burns. On the same day, the informant

lodged a complaint against the respondents at Vaijapur

Police Station. On the basis of the complaint, Crime No. I-

143/2001 was registered against the respondents for the
                                                           4
                                                  412.2004APPEAL



offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B read

with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).


           The postmortem report revealed 98% burn

injuries and the cause of death was opined as ‘cardio-

respiratory failure due to burns’. Upon completion of

investigation,   chargesheet   was   filed   against   all   the

respondents, and the trial proceeded on committal of the

case. The learned Trial Court framed charges against all

the respondents for the offences punishable under Sections

498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. The

respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.


3.         To bring home the charge, the prosecution

examined in all 8 witnesses i.e. PW-1 - Suresh Baburao

Gadhekar – Informant and Father of the deceased. PW-2 -

Meena Suresh Gadhekar - Mother of the deceased, PW-3 -

Appasaheb Suryabhan Nalawade - Neighbour of the

deceased and Panch Witness, PW-4- Pushpa Bhaskarrao

Baravkar - Witness to the Inquest Panchanama, PW-5-

Anand Shankarrao Patil - Doctor, who conducted the

autopsy, PW-6- Bhaskar Shrihari Barvkar- Mediator and

Maternal Uncle of father of the deceased, PW-7- Gajanan


                                                              5
                                                  412.2004APPEAL



Patilba Jaibhaye- Police Inspector who submitted the

chargesheet and PW-8- Namdev Waman Gavli, Investigating

Officer.


             The learned Trial Court, after conducting the

trial and considering the evidence on record, by its

judgment and order dated 10.03.2004, acquitted all the

respondents of the charges levelled against them. Being

aggrieved by the said judgment and order of acquittal, the

State has preferred the present appeal.


4.           Heard learned APP appearing for the appellant -

State and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

With their able assistance, we have perused the judgment

and order passed by the learned Trial Court, notes of

evidence as well as the original record and proceedings.


5.           It is argued by learned APP that the prosecution

has brought on record sufficient and cogent evidence of

Suresh      Baburao    Godhekar     (PW-1),   Meena     Suresh

Gadhekar (PW-2) and Bhaskar Shrihari Barvkar (PW-6),

which      would   clearly   show   the   involvement   of   the

respondents in the commission of the crime, in as much as

all the aforesaid witnesses have stated that the respondents

                                                              6
                                                  412.2004APPEAL



ill-treated and harassed the deceased soon before her

death. Learned APP submitted that the death has occurred

within seven years from the date of marriage, and therefore,

prayed that the appeal be allowed.


6.          Learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that there is no evidence to show that the respondents had

ever demanded the amount of dowry or that the deceased

was ever subjected to cruelty and harassment by them in

connection with the demand of dowry. Learned counsel by

relying upon the reasons recorded by the Trial Court

submitted that the Trial Court has recorded the findings in

consonance with the evidence on record and since there is

no perversity in the judgment passed by the Trial Court,

urged for dismissal of the appeal.


7.          Before appreciating the evidence on record, it

will be relevant to refer to Sections 498-A and 304-B of the

IPC, which read thus :-


Section 498-A:

     "498-A. Husband or relative of husband of a
     woman subjecting her to cruelty.—Whoever, being
     the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,
     subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
     imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
     years and shall also be liable to fine.
                                                              7
                                                    412.2004APPEAL




     Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “cruelty”
     means—
     (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is
     likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
     grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
     mental or physical) of the woman; or

     (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is
     with a view to coercing her or any person related to her
     to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
     valuable security or is on account of failure by her or
     any person related to her to meet such demand."


Section 304-B:

     "304-B. Dowry death.—(1) Where the death of a
     woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or
     occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances
     within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that
     soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
     harassment by her husband or any relative of her
     husband for, or in connection with, any demand for
     dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and
     such husband or relative shall be deemed to have
     caused her death.

     Explanation. —For the purposes of this sub-section,
     “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of
     the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).


     (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished
     with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less
     than seven years but which may extend to
     imprisonment for life."

8.          After reading the aforesaid sections, it becomes

clear that for an offence under Section 304-B of the IPC,

the prosecution must establish: (i) death by burns or bodily

injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; (ii)

death within seven years of marriage; (iii) the woman was
                                                                8
                                                   412.2004APPEAL



subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death;

and (iv) such cruelty or harassment was for or in

connection with dowry demand. The expression "soon

before her death" mandates a proximate link between the

cruelty and the death. Similarly, for an offence under

Section 498-A, the prosecution must prove that the

accused subjected the woman to cruelty, which includes

willful conduct likely to drive her to suicide or cause grave

injury, or harassment in connection with an unlawful

demand for property or valuable security.


9.         In this case, there is no dispute that the death

of the deceased occurred within seven years of marriage.

The   only question      for consideration   is   whether    the

prosecution has proved that the deceased was subjected to

cruelty or harassment soon before her death.


10.        To prove the demand of dowry, the prosecution

examined Suresh Godhekar (PW-1), Meena Gadhekar (PW-

2) and Bhaskar Barvkar (PW-6).


           PW-1, the father of the deceased, has given fatal

admissions    in   his    cross-examination,      which     were

conspicuously absent in his statement given to the Police.

                                                               9
                                                 412.2004APPEAL



The omissions are (i)       that in November, 1999, he had

brought the deceased to his house for her delivery and at

that time, she was not happy as usual; (ii) that in June or

July, 2000, when the deceased had come to her parental

home,   that   time   she    had   informed   him    that   the

respondents were subjecting her to cruelty on account of

unlawful demand of Rs.20,000/- and that he had assured

her that he will pay the remaining amount to them; (iii)

that respondent No. 3 had once assaulted the deceased

with a broom; (iv) that respondent no.4 had pulled the hair

of the deceased; (v) that many times the respondents did

not allow her to take food; (vi) that he had paid Rs.10,000/-

to respondent No.1 in presence of Bhaskar Barvkar (PW-6)

and Fakirrao Shirsat.


11.        PW-2- the mother of the deceased, has also

given fatal admissions in her cross-examination, which

have led to grave omissions. Those are :- (i) that    at    the

time when the deceased had come to her parental house for

delivery, she had informed that all the respondents were

demanding the remaining dowry amount of Rs. 20,000/-

and were subjecting her to cruelty on that count; (ii)      that

the deceased had informed her that the respondents were
                                                             10
                                                     412.2004APPEAL



preventing her from taking meals; (iii) that after 2-3

months of stay at the residence of PW-2, respondent Nos. 3

and 4 took the deceased back to their residence; (iv) that

again after 4-5 months, the deceased returned to PW-2 and

repeatedly told her about the cruelty meted by the

respondents demanding the remaining dowry amount; (v)

that again after 5-6 months, before her death, the deceased

had come to her complaing about the cruelty and on the

next day, PW-1 took the deceased back to the residence of

the   respondents    and      handed    over   the   amount     of

Rs.10,000/- in presence of Bhaskar Barvkar and Fakir

Shirsat.


12.        PW-6- Bhaskar Barvkar, the mediator and

maternal uncle of the deceased’s father, has also given fatal

admissions in his cross-examination, leading to grave

omissions, which are :- (i)    that    after   14    months     of

marriage, the deceased had gone to her parental house

without intimating anything to him; (ii) that on the next

day morning, the deceased along with PW-1 Suresh and

Fakir Shirsat, had come to him and they all proceeded to

the residence of the respondents where PW-1 handed over

Rs. 10,000/- to respondent no.1; (iii)     that after one month
                                                                11
                                                   412.2004APPEAL



of payment of Rs. 10,000/-, the respondents had driven the

deceased out of the house, asking her to bring the

remaining dowry      amount of Rs. 10,000/-; (iv) that

immediately after the deceased reached his residence, PW-1

Suresh had informed him about her being driven out of the

house; (v) that respondent No.1 was serving as a Village

Development Officer at Paranda and was not keeping the

deceased with him to co-habit; and (vi) that on 13.10.2001,

when   PW-1    had   come    to   Vaijapur   on    account    of

"Dhondyacha    Mahina"      and   offered    new   clothes    to

respondent Nos.3 and 4, the deceased told him that the

respondents were subjecting her to cruelty on account of

the remaining dowry amount of Rs. 10,000/-.


13.        PW-1, PW-2 and PW-6 expressed their inability

to tell as to why these facts are absent from their police

statements. This inability to offer a plausible explanation,

coupled with the fact that these serious allegations of

cruelty do not form part of their earlier statements given to

the police render these assertions as improvements made

during the trial and amount to contradictions. These

omissions are substantive and go to the core of the

prosecution case. These omissions are significant and
                                                              12
                                                  412.2004APPEAL



relevant, and therefore, by virtue of Explanation to Section

162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,

‘CRPC’) the same amounts to contradictions. The omission

of these specific instances of alleged ill-treatment stated in

the statement given to the Police is a material improvement,

rendering the subsequent introduction of these facts as an

afterthought. Consequently, the testimony of PW-1, PW-2

and PW-6 cannot be relied on to prove the offence under

Sections 498-A and 304-B of the IPC.


14.        Further, the prosecution has failed to adduce

any cogent evidence to establish that the death of the

deceased was suicidal. The mere fact that she suffered

burn injuries is not conclusive. While the prosecution's

case is that the deceased set herself ablaze, the evidence on

record is silent in this regard. The Investigating Officer, PW-

8, admitted that while some partly burnt clothes of the

deceased were lying at the spot, they were not seized or

sent for chemical analysis. A forensic analysis of the clothes

was crucial to determine whether there was presence of

kerosene or any other inflammable substance on it. This

would have been a conclusive proof to ascertain whether

the fire was an act of self-immolation or an accident caused
                                                             13
                                                 412.2004APPEAL



by the stove catching fire, which is an undisputed fact, as

the deceased was cooking in the kitchen at the time of the

incident. This failure by the investigating agency to seize

and send the material object for chemical analysis creates a

fatal lacuna in the prosecution case. In the absence of such

evidence, it cannot be concluded that the death was

suicidal, further weakening the prosecution’s case of dowry

death.


15.        It is also pertinent to note the financial standing

and social status of the respondent family at the time of the

incident. The evidence on record indicates that accused

No.1-respondent No. 1 (husband of the deceased) was

serving as a Village Development Officer at Village Paranda

since prior to his marriage. Also, accused No.3-respondent

No. 3 (father-in-law of the deceased) was employed as a

teacher in a Zilla Parishad Primary School at Vaijapur. The

respondent family also owned a residential house at

Vaijapur. These facts collectively demonstrate that the

respondents were financially sound and well-placed. In

such circumstances, the prosecution’s case that the

respondents subjected the deceased to extreme cruelty for a



                                                            14
                                                  412.2004APPEAL



demand of Rs. 20,000/- as dowry, appears improbable and

does not inspire confidence.


16.          The   omissions    in   the   statements   of   the

prosecution witnesses are crucial and fatal to the case. The

evidence on record does not establish that the deceased

was subjected to cruelty or harassment "soon before her

death," which is a mandatory requirement to attract the

provisions of Section 304-B of the IPC. As the demand for

dowry itself remains unproved, it cannot be said that any

alleged harassment was for or in connection with such a

demand, so as to drive the deceased to commit suicide. The

vague incidents quoted by the witnesses do not indicate a

nature or gravity sufficient to prove that her death occurred

otherwise      than     under        normal     circumstances.

Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the

chain of events linking the alleged cruelty to the untimely

death of the deceased, and the essential ingredients of

Section 304-B and Section 498-A of the IPC are not

satisfied.


17.          Even to attract the ingredients of Section 498-A

of the IPC, the prosecution must show specific acts of the


                                                             15
                                                      412.2004APPEAL



accused suggesting cruelty and harassment. Conviction

cannot be based on such general and vague allegations

made by the witnesses by reversing the well-reasoned order

of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.


18.        For     the   reasons   stated     in     the   forgoing

paragraphs, we are of the considered view that the findings

recorded by the Trial Court are in consonance with the

evidence on record and there being no perversity as such,

the Criminal Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Hence, the

Criminal Appeal stands dismissed. Bail bonds of the

respondents    –   original   accused,   if   any,    shall   stand

surrendered.




[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV]            [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE]
          JUDGE                            JUDGE


sga




                                                                 16