ASHOK MARUTI KANASEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                                                                               901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




                                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
           Digitally signed
           by
                                              CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
           HUSENBASHA
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN    NADAF
NADAF
           Date:
           2026.09.22                  CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.317 OF 2008
           17:46:51 +0530



                              Ashok Maruti Kanase                    )
                              Age 31 years, Occupation Service       )
                              R/o. Village Chakan, Tal. Khed,        )
                              District Pune.                         )
                              (Applicant at present in Jail, Yerawada)     …Applicant/Org. Accused

                                      Versus

                              The State of Maharashtra                 )
                              Through Chakan Police Station            )
                              District Pune.                           )   … Respondent

                                                                ***
                              Mr. U.B. Nighot, for the Applicant.
                              Mr. Tanveer G. Khan, APP for the Respondent/ State.
                              API- R.B. Pawar, North Chakan Police Station, Pimpri Chinchwad, is
                              present.
                                                                ***

                                                        CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
                                                   RESERVED ON : 24th APRIL, 2026
                                                PRONOUNCED ON : 22nd SEPTEMBER, 2026

                              JUDGMENT :

                              1.      Invoking Section 397 r/w. 401 of The Code of Criminal
                              Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’, for short). The Revision Applicant/accused
                              is challenging conviction and sentence for offences punishable under
                              Sections 306 and 498A of The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, for
                              short), as explained hereinbelow. The Revision Applicant is sole
                              accused in Crime No.41/2004 filed by his father-in-law. The Revision


                              Husen                                1
                                                  901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




Applicant is convicted by the Trial Court for both the offences which
conviction is confirmed by the Appellate Court.

                           BRIEF BACKGROUND

2.      The Revision Applicant got married with deceased Sindhu in
the year 1994. One son and one daughter were born from the
wedlock. Initially, the Revision Applicant and said Sindhu were
residing at Kasara and thereafter at Chakan and leading happy
married life till about year 2001. Thereafter, the trouble started when
the Revision Applicant decided to start additional business of selling
coconut oil, for which he was in need of money and he started
demanding the same from Sindhu. For fulfilling this demand, he
started subjecting Sindhu to physical assault and mental harassment.
When Sindhu informed the same to her family members, initially her
father gave Rs.7,000/- to the Revision Applicant but thereafter also
the harassment continued, which was informed by Sindhu. Then
again father of Sindhu gave an additional amount of Rs.10,000/- to
the Revision Applicant and tried to convince him to treat Sindhu
properly but in vain.

3.      On 12.03.2004, father and brother of Sindhu met her when she
told that for about 2 months the Revision Applicant was not doing
any work and was demanding to bring amount from her parents for
the purpose of business. She also expressed that she is completely fed
up. The Revision Applicant threatened Sindhu not to return without
money. Father and brother of Sindhu requested the father-in-law to
intervene but he did not help saying that the Revision Applicant will


Husen                                2
                                                 901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




not listen. Therefore, father and brother of deceased Sindhu tried to
convince her to come to the parental house. However, Sindhu refused
it in a fit of anger saying that they were not having any money and
her husband is also not allowing her to stay in the house. She
returned to the house of the Revision Applicant totally fed up.

4.      Thereafter, within 12 days, on 24.03.2004, dead body of
Sindhu and her two minor children Priyanka and Akshay were found
in Indrayani river. The children were 7 and 9 years of age. The
parents were informed who identified the bodies and received their
custody after post-mortem. Last rites were performed. Then on
29.03.2004 father of deceased Sindhu lodged complaint at Chakan
Police Station leading to Crime No. 41/2004 being registered.

5.      During investigation, spot panchnama was made, statements of
witnesses were recorded, the Revision Applicant was arrested, post-
mortem reports were collected showing cause of death as ‘asphyxia
due to drowning’. Charge-sheet came to be filed. The case was
committed to the Sessions Court. Charges were framed.

6.      The Revision Applicant pleaded not guilty claiming innocence.

7.      Prosecution examined 8 witnesses including father and brother
of deceased as PW-1 & PW-2, her cousin brother as PW-3, neighbour
as PW-4, her landlord as PW-5, Investigating Officer as PW-6, Medical
Officers/doctors as PW-7 and PW-8.

8.      Learned 13th Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune who heard
and tried the case was pleased to convict the Revision Applicant for


Husen                                 3
                                                 901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




offences punishable under Section 498A and 306 of IPC under
Judgment and Order dated 29.12.2004 passed in S.C. No. 241/2004.
The Revision Applicant was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment (‘R.I.’ for short) for 2 years for offence under Section
498A of IPC and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of
fine, to undergo R. I. of 6 months. The Revision Applicant was further
sentenced to undergo R. I. for 3 years and to pay Rs.1,000/- for
offence under Section 306 of IPC and in default of payment of fine, to
undergo R. I. of 6 months. Substantive sentences were directed to run
concurrently. The Revision Applicant was under trial prisoner at the
relevant time.

9.      The Revision Applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2005
challenging the conviction and sentence by the Trial Court. By
impugned judgment and order dated 18.06.2008, the learned
Sessions Judge, 5, Pune dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the
conviction and sentence. Bail bond of Revision Applicant was
cancelled and he was taken into custody. It was recorded that the
Revision Applicant is entitled to set off for the period already
undergone in jail from 01.04.2004 to 01.02.2005.

10.     The Revision Applicant filed the present revision application,
which was admitted on 12.08.2008. On the same day, the Revision
Applicant was granted bail. Therefore, the Revision Applicant has
undergone the imprisonment for a period of about 1 year.

                                SUBMISSIONS

11.     Learned counsel for the Revision Applicant submitted as under.

Husen                                 4
                                               901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




11.1. That no details about payment of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.7,000/-
by the father has come on record. That the FIR is lodged as an
afterthought after 5 days.

11.2. That the alleged offence is not proved beyond reasonable
doubt. That the witnesses being close relative of deceased Sindhu,
are interested witnesses being father, brother and cousin. That no
neighboring witness is examined about alleged cruelty and abetment
to suicide. That PW-4 neighboring lady is also an interested witness
because she was relative of the landlord who was trying to get the
possession back from family of the deceased.

11.3. That Sindhu faced many other problems in her life such as
health problems of the children. That the Revision Applicant was a
caring husband as he had called brother of deceased when she went
missing.

11.4. He lastly submitted that by passage of time, the Revision
Applicant has now reached 60 years of age and therefore lenient view
be taken considering that he has already undergone about 1 year of
imprisonment.

12.     On the other hand, learned APP supported the impugned order
contending inter alia that the witnesses have stated that in March
2004, very close to the date of incident, that Sindhu had informed
about her husband not going to work and demanding money. He
submitted that it has come on record that the Revision Applicant had
told deceased Sindhu that she should not return home without
money. He submitted that Rs.7,000/- was paid during Diwali of 2001.

Husen                               5
                                                  901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




That evidence of witnesses, who have corroborated the case has not
been shaken during cross-examination. He submitted that offence
under Section 306 of IPC is punishable by imprisonment upto 10
years. However, already lenient view is taken and 3 years R.I. is
awarded. He submitted that proximate reason existed in the form of
demand informed by deceased Sindhu to her father and brother on
12.03.2004, and incident has taken place immediately within 12 days
thereafter.

                         REASONS AND CONCLUSION

13.     I have considered rival submissions and perused the record.

14.     At the outset, it is material to note that there is no dispute
about the fact that deceased Sindhu as well as both the children were
found dead due to drowning in water. The medical evidence in that
respect is undeniable.

15.     PW-1 - Father of the deceased has stated as under.

15.1. That in Diwali Festival of 2001 deceased Sindhu had come to
the parental house along with children when she had informed that
the Revision Applicant was in need of Rs.30,000/- and that the
Revision Applicant had asked her to bring the money from her
parents for which she was facing beating and harassment and
therefore amount of Rs.7,000/- was given to Sindhu. He has also
stated that thereafter, deceased Sindhu has informed 2/3 times on
telephone about demand of money, from the Revision Applicant and
therefore, he had paid further amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Revision


Husen                                 6
                                                901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




Applicant.

15.2. He has further stated that on 12.03.2004, deceased Sindhu had
come to her in-laws’ house which is located near to the father’s house
and therefore, he and his family members went to meet Sindhu,
when she informed that the Revision Applicant has stopped going to
work since couple of months and that the Revision Applicant had
demanded amount for his business and asked her to bring the
amount from her parents. Deceased had informed that the Revision
Applicant warned her that if she does not come with the amount,
then she should not come back to the house.

15.3. He has stated that he asked her father-in-law to intervene but
he said that he has no concern and will not visit the Revision
Applicant for convincing.

15.4. He has further stated that when he tried to convince deceased
Sindhu, she was not ready to go home because the Revision Applicant
was harassing her by demanding amount.

16.     PW-2 - Brother of the deceased Sindhu has corroborated the
version of the father.

17.     PW-3 - Cousin of the deceased has also corroborated stating
that since 2001 the ill-treatment and harassment had started at the
hands of the Revision Applicant. He has stated that deceased Sindhu
told that her husband wanted to start business for which he needed
money which was demanded from deceased Sindhu and she was
beaten and abused for the same. He has stated that the father of


Husen                                7
                                                  901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




Sindhu had paid Rs.7,000/- and Rs.10,000/- to the Revision
Applicant.

18.     PW-4 - Neighbour of the deceased has stated as under.

18.1. That she resided in the flat opposite the flat occupied by the
Revision Applicant and deceased. She has stated that the Revision
Applicant was addicted to alcohol and there used to be disputes
between Revision Applicant and his wife and the Revision Applicant
used to beat his wife. She has stated that Revision Applicant was
indebted. She has stated that deceased Sindhu was suffering from
mental torture because of the visit of persons who would come
demanding money/repayment of loan. She has also stated that the
Revision Applicant was asking the deceased to bring money from the
parental house.

18.2. This witness (neighbour) has stated that on 23.03.2004 (one
day prior to the incident), the deceased had asked the Revision
Applicant about payment of rent and quarrel had taken place on that
count when the Revision Applicant had beaten the deceased at night
time. She has stated that thereafter, deceased Sindhu left home with
her children by locking the door of the house and while leaving the
house, deceased Sindhu told PW-4 that as soon as her husband
returns home, she should intimate her husband to make contact with
her.

19.     The aforesaid corroborating evidence is found sufficient by the
Courts below to convict the Revision Applicant. The suggestions given
in cross-examination to father of deceased about Revision Applicant’s

Husen                                 8
                                                 901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




financial condition and about his service, are not sufficient to
materially shake their testimony. The admissions extracted from the
witnesses about the ill health of the children are not sufficient to
conclude that deceased Sindhu had other pressures in life, so much
as to drive her to take the extreme step. The admission given by
brother of deceased that he received telephone call from the Revision
Applicant twice on the date of incident when deceased had left the
house, is not sufficient to conclude that the Revision Applicant was a
caring person as suggested by learned counsel for the Applicant.

20.     Testimony of PW-4 - neighbour has not been materially shaken
in cross-examination. The argument that PW-4 - neighbour is an
interested witness because she is relative of the landlord who was
interested in getting possession back is far-fetched and is not
sufficient to discard the testimony of an independent witness.

21.     In the backdrop of such evidence, the Appellate Court has
rightly held that except for some minor discrepancies about delivery
of amount at the hands of deceased Sindhu or directly to the Revision
Applicant, there are no major inconsistencies or discrepancies. The
Appellate Court has rightly considered that just about 12 days before
the death, deceased had met her father and brother and as per their
evidence at that time, deceased Sindhu had informed about the
demand of money. The Appellate Court has considered evidence of
cousin of the deceased as well as the neighbour. The Appellate Court
has concluded that if there was no harassment and ill-treatment of
deceased Sindhu at the hands of the Revision Applicant, there was no
reason for her to end her life with the lives of two minor children

Husen                                9
                                                   901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




merely on the count that the landlord was asking to vacate the house.
The Appellate Court has also rightly concluded that her condition has
become so miserable on account of the harassment, that she took the
extreme step. The Appellate Court has also rightly considered that the
ill health of her two children was not of such nature or incurable so
as to throw her in depression, because it has come on record that her
son was operated for ‘urinal problem’ and daughter was suffering
from ‘weak eyesight’.

22.     The Appellate Court has considered the overall situation in
which the deceased Sindhu was caught where her husband was not
allowing her to live peacefully, father-in-law was not intervening and
her parents were not in a position to meet the demand of money by
the husband. The Appellate Court has considered that the law about
abetment and suicide includes cases where the accused creates a
situation whereby evidence indicates that it amounted to instigation.
A young mother with two young children have lost their life.

23.     Both the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court has
concurrently held that the offences are proved.

24.     In State Vs. Manimaran      (2019) 13 SCC 670, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has held as under:

        "16.   As held in State of Kerala V. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan
        Namboodiri (1999) 2 SCC 452, ordinarily it would not be
        appropriate for the High Court to reappreciate the evidence and
        come to its own conclusion on the same when the evidence has
        already been appreciated by the Magistrate as well as by the


Husen                                  10
                                                      901 REVN-317-2008 (J) C2.doc




        Sessions Court in appeal. When the courts below recorded the
        concurrent findings of fact, in our view, the High Court was not right
        in interfering with the concurrent findings of fact arrived at by the
        courts below and the impugned order cannot be sustained."
                                                      (emphasis supplied)


25.     Therefore, it is not possible to re-appreciate the evidence and
to come to a contrary finding. Overall, the view taken by the Courts
below can not be faulted.

26.     In the aforesaid facts and circumstances and for reasons
indicated above, there is no reason to interfere with concurrent
findings.

27.     Revision   application    is   dismissed.    Rule     is   discharged.
Applicant’s bail-bond and surety, if any, stand cancelled. Revision
Applicant is given 4 weeks’ time to surrender.

                                                    (M.M. SATHAYE, J.)




Husen                                    11