NANDABAI SHYAM RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:10519-DB


                                     1          Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25



                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                              BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.492 OF 2025


                  Nandabai w/o Shyam Ratod,
                  Age : 50 years, Occu.: Household,
                  R/o.: Nehru Nagar, Tanda,
                  Post, Harwadi, Tq. Renapur,
                  District : Latur                            ….      APPELLANT
                                                              (Original Informant)
                  VERSUS

            1.    The State of Maharashtra,
                  Through Police Inspector,
                  Bhada Police Station,
                  Tq. Ausa, District : Latur

            2.    Parmeshwar s/o Subhash Chavan,
                  Age : 32 years, Occu.: Labour & Agri.,

            3.    Tayabai w/o Subhash Chavan,
                  Age : 55 years Occu.: Labour and Agri.,

                  Respondent Nos.2 & 3 R/o.: Devtala,
                  Taluka Ausa, District : Latur          …. RESPONDENTS
                                              (Resp. No.2 & 3 Orig. Accused)

                                             ….
            Mr. S. P. Tiwari h/f Mr. Shantilal J. Gaike, Advocate for the
            Appellant
            Mr. P. S. Patil, APP for Respondent No.1-State
                                             ….
                             2             Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

                        CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
                                ABASAHEB D. SHINDE , JJ.

                        DATED : 09/03/2026.


JUDGMENT : ( PER : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )

1.     The appellant–informant has challenged the acquittal of

respondent Nos. 2 and 3, who were the accused in Sessions Case

No.24 of 2018, for the offences punishable under Sections 304B,

306, 498A, 323, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal

Code, as recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Latur

(hereinafter referred to as “the learned Trial Judge”) by judgment

and order dated 08.01.2025 in the said case.



2.     According to the prosecution, the informant–appellant lodged

a complaint on 03.08.2017 at Bhada Police Station stating that her

daughter, Bhagyashree, got married with respondent No.2–accused

on 23.05.2013. At that time dowry of Rs. 2,50,000/- was paid to

the accused. Though Bhagyashree gave birth to two sons, namely

Prathamesh and Yash, the respondents, along with other persons

from    village   Devtala,       started   harassing        her     by     demanding

Rs.2,00,000/- for purchasing a tractor. They used to beat her.

When Bhagyashree informed the informant about the said

harassment, the informant expressed her inability to fulfill the
                              3          Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

demand.        Thereafter, on 17.11.2016 at about 9:30 a.m., the

respondents–accused forcibly administered a poisonous substance

to Bhagyashree on account of her failure to bring Rs.2,00,000/-.

Thereafter, the informant’s father took Bhagyashree to Government

Hospital, Ausa; however, on the same day at about 10:50 a.m., she

died during treatment. Accordingly, the report was lodged for the

aforesaid offences.

           On completion of investigation, the respondents – accused

were charge-sheeted, but the learned trial judge, after conducting

the trial, acquitted all the respondents – accused from the aforesaid

offence.



3.    Heard learned counsel for the appellant – informant at the

admission stage and also perused the impugned judgment.



4.    The learned counsel for the appellant–informant vehemently

argued that the learned Trial Judge has not properly appreciated

the evidence on record and has ignored the vital evidence of the

son   of    the   deceased,       who   had    witnessed        the    act of     the

respondents–accused       of       allegedly    administering            poison    to

Bhagyashree.
                        4         Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

5.   On going through the impugned judgment on record, it is

evident that the informant has alleged that the respondents–

accused, by assaulting Bhagyashree, forcibly administered a

poisonous substance to her and therefore, she died due to

poisoning. Admittedly, it is a case of organophosphorus poisoning

as per the evidence of the Medical Officer. However, the evidence of

the witnesses on the aspect of ill-treatment of the deceased does

not appear reliable and trustworthy in light of the fact that A.D.

Report No.34 of 2016 was registered after the death of Bhagyashree

and during the inquiry of the same, the informant and other

witnesses had stated that Bhagyashree was short-tempered and

was suffering from typhoid and that in a state of anger she herself

consumed poisonous material.       Moreover, the evidence of the

informant and other witnesses is full of material contradictions and

omissions. Furthermore, the FIR was lodged after a delay of eight

months, which is absolutely fatal to the prosecution case.



6.   Further, it appears that though the son of Bhagyashree, i.e.,

Prathamesh (PW-6), had deposed against the respondents–accused

and stated that they first beat Bhagyashree and then administered

poison to her, but no external injuries were found on the person of

Bhagyashree. Considering the fact that he was residing with his
                        5         Judgment in Cri. Appeal No.492-25

grandmother, the possibility of tutoring cannot be ruled out,

particularly as he was merely three years old at the relevant time.

Considering all these aspects, it is evident that the learned Trial

Judge has properly appreciated the evidence and rightly acquitted

the respondents–accused. In view of the same, we do not find any

reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.




( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. )       ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )


VS Maind/-