PARMESHWAR CHAGAN SASANE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

2026:BHC-AUG:646


                                                                 CriRevn-393-2025
                                                  -1-

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                         CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 393 OF 2025

                   1)   Parmeshwar s/o Chagan Sasane
                        Age : 31 years, Occu. Service,
                        R/o. Domri, Tq. Patoda,
                        District Beed.
                        At Present : Mahagaon, Tq. Gadhinglaj,
                        District Kolhapur.
                        (Husband of Deceased/Informant)

                   2)   Chagan s/o Girija Sasane
                        Age : 65 years, Occu. Labour,
                        R/o. Domri, Taluka Patoda,
                        District Beed.
                        (Father-in-law of Deceased/Informant)

                   3)   Kusum w/o Chagan Sasane
                        Age : 52 years, Occu. Household,
                        R/o. Domri, Taluka Patoda,
                        District Beed.
                        (Mother-in-law of Deceased/Informant)


                   4)   Shivaji s/o Chagan Sasane
                        Age : 30 years, Occu. Labour,
                        R/o. Domri, Taluka Patoda,
                        District Beed.
                        (Brother-in-law of Deceased/Informant)

                   5)   Alka w/o Murlidhar Waghmare
                        Age : 29 years, Occu. Household,
                        R/o. Charhata, Tq. & Dist. Beed,
                        At Present : Pimpalwadi,
                        Tq. & Dist. Beed.
                        (Sister-in-law of Deceased/Informant)

                   6)   Murlidhar s/o Narayan Waghmare
                        Age : 43 years, Occu. Labour,
                        R/o. Charhata, Tq. & Dist. Beed,
                        At Present : Pimpalwadi,
                                                     CriRevn-393-2025
                                 -2-

     Tq. & Dist. Beed.
     (Husband of Sister-in-law
     of Deceased/Informant)

7)   Sangita w/o Yogesh Sarode
     Age : 34 years, Occu. Household,
     R/o. Andhalgaon Phata, Andhalgaon,
     Taluka and District Pune.
     (Sister-in-law of Deceased/Informant)

8)   Avinash s/o Sudhakar Sarode
     Age : 34 years, Occu. Labour,
     R/o. Andhalgaon Phata, Andhalgaon,
     Taluka and District Pune.
     (Husband of Sister-in-law
     of Deceased/Informant)                     … Applicants
                                                (Orig. Accused)
     versus

1)    The State of Maharashtra
      Through : The Police Inspector of
      Patoda Police Station, Beed,
      Taluka and District Beed.                  … Respondents
                                 …..
     Mr. Angad L. Kanade, Advocate for the Revision Petitioners.
       Mr. S. G. Sangle, Advocate for the Respondent-State.
                                 .....

                        CORAM :        ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.
                        Reserved on        : 06.01.2026
                        Pronounced on      : 08.01.2026

JUDGMENT :


1.   Present revision petitioners, who are husband and in-laws of

deceased Aishwarya Sasane, are taking exception to the judgment and

order dated 21.07.2025 passed on application Exhibit 25 in Sessions

Case No. 24 of 2021 by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Beed
                                                           CriRevn-393-2025
                                   -3-

thereby rejecting their application for discharge filed by invoking

Section 227 of Cr.P.C.



2.    In nutshell, on statement of deceased Aishwarya Parmeshwar

Sasane recorded while she was being treated in the hospital, Patoda

Police registered crime bearing No. 202 of 2019 for offence under

Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Subsequently,

Aishwarya succumbed and therefore charge under Section 302 IPC

came to be added and after investigation, charge sheet was filed

against in all 8 accused (present revision petitioners).



3.    Exhibit 25 came to be pressed into service by revision

petitioners before learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Beed by

invoking Section 227 of Cr.P.C. thereby praying for discharge on the

ground of false implication about maltreatment in the backdrop of

demand of Rs.4,00,000/-. They denied physical and mental ill-

treatment and case was set up that, general and omnibus allegations

are levelled and entire family is tried to be roped in. It was pointed

out that, deceased Aishwarya died while she was put up with her

parents and as such, they are not responsible for her death in any

manner. On account of annoyance on losing Aishwarya, who

according to them died due to some physical ailment, they are falsely
                                                        CriRevn-393-2025
                                   -4-

implicated. It was projected that deceased, after being hospitalized,

was treated and discharged after she had recovered and deceased

herself had stated to that extent in her statement, but had levelled

omnibus allegations of ill-treatment in the backdrop of demand of

Rs.4,00,000/- for purchasing car. Amongst several grounds, it is their

case that there is no sufficient material in chargesheet to make them

face trial and so they urged to discharge them. But learned trial court

was pleased to hold that there are prima facie grounds to proceed

against the applicants-accused and thereby rejected the application.

Hence instant revision.



4.      On the other hand, learned APP would strongly oppose on the

ground that, deceased herself has given statement that after six

months of marriage, husband put up demand of money for car and on

account of its non fulfillment, there was both, physical and mental

cruelty, which deceased reported to her relatives. He would point out

that, there are also allegations against in-laws and other relatives for

subjecting Aishwarya to ill-treatment time to time also in the

backdrop of Rs.4,00,000/- for purchase of car. He pointed out that,

husband is specifically named for ill-treatment. He further pointed out

that,   even   there   are   allegations   against   mother-in-law   for

administering poison which turned to be fatal and to be the cause of
                                                       CriRevn-393-2025
                                  -5-

death. He would submit that death is unnatural. That, the act of

administration of poison was in the house of in-laws and Aishwarya

had succumbed to the same only. Complaint and statements of

various witnesses carry name of all accused persons and there being

sufficient material against them, he urges similar treatment to the

application as is accorded by learned trial Judge, i.e. by rejecting the

application.


5.    At the outset, during the course of hearing and on prima facie

satisfaction, when this Court expressed its disinclination to consider

relief in favour of husband Parmeshwar and mother-in-law Kusum,

learned counsel, on instructions, seeks withdrawal of application to

their extent and accordingly permission to withdraw their application

is granted.


6.    Here, applicants who are husband and in-laws of deceased

Aishwarya who died on 11.11.2019, are being chargesheeted for

commission of offence under Sections 498-A, 328, 302, 323, 504, 506

r/w 34 of IPC. Precise accusation against them is that, they subjected

deceased Aishwarya to physical and mental cruelty and mother-in-law

specifically is responsible for administering poison resulting into her

death. Now, all accused-revision petitioners are seeking discharge

under Section 227 of Cr.P.C.
                                                        CriRevn-393-2025
                                   -6-

7.    Before adverting to the merits, it would be fruitful to give a

brief account of settled legal precedents to be borne in mind while

entertaining application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. Few amongst

them which could be named are State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh

(1977) 4 SCC 39 ; Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal & Another

(1979) 3 SCC 4 ; R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & Another (1986) 2 SCC

716; Sajjan Kumar v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2010) 9 SCC

368 ; Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra & Another (2012) 9 SCC 460

and recent judgment in the case of Asim Shariff v. National

Investigating Agency (2019) 7 SCC 148, Ram Prakash Chadha v.

State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 651.



8.    The ratio that is culled out is that, while dealing with an

application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C., strong suspicion against the

accused cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of

the trial. But at the initial stage, if there is a strong suspicion which

leads the court to think that there is ground for presuming that the

accused has committed an offence, then it is not open to the court to

say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused. The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally

depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a

rule of universal application. Where the material placed before the
                                                        CriRevn-393-2025
                                   -7-

Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been

properly explained, the court will be fully justified in framing a charge

and proceeding with the trial. By and large however, if two views are

equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced

before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion

against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the

accused.



9.    Keeping in mind the above settled legal principles, sifted the

charge sheet with limited purpose to ascertain whether case for

discharge is at all made out or not. Charge sheet shows that statement

of Aishwarya, on the strength of which crime has been registered,

was recorded on 26.10.2019 while she was undergoing treatment in

Lifeline Hospital, Beed. She reported that, for a period of 5 to 6

months after marriage, she was properly treated, but when she

accompanied her husband Parmeshwar to Kolhapur at his service

place, she has levelled allegations against him for putting up demand

of car and asking her to arrange Rs.4,00,000/- from her parents and

on such count, she has alleged cruelty being inflicted to her. She

reported that on account of failure to comply, she was brought and

dropped at her in-laws’ place and refused to take her back to

Kolhapur until his above monitory demand was met. Then she named
                                                      CriRevn-393-2025
                                 -8-

father-in-law Chagan Sasane, mother-in-law Kusum Sasane, brother-

in-law Shivaji Chagan Sasane, sister-in-law Sangita Waghmare and

her husband Murlidhar for taunting her for not bringing utensils in

the marriage and she alleges she being questioned by them for not

bringing Rs.4,00,000/- for car and she being abused and beaten by

kicks and fist blows and she being kept starved. She reported the

above treatment to her family members who allegedly gave

understanding to her in-laws. She further reported in the FIR that

while she was put up with her parents-in-law, her mother-in-law

Kusum made her drink medicine from a bottle suggesting and

assuring that she would feel better, as a result of which she started

vomiting regularly and was finally dropped by her husband at her

parents’ place. She also reported that on 18.07.2019, her parents

admitted her in Government Hospital at Patoda and there, on

examining her, the hospital authorities advised to shift her to GHATI

Hospital at Aurangabad and there she was allegedly told by the

doctors that her pregnancy was required to be terminated as there

was threat to her life and accordingly, her abortion was performed.

She stated that, thereafter after feeling well, she was discharged and

she went back to stay with her parents at Beed, but her complaint of

vomiting continued and she was then taken to Pune where she was

treated from 27.08.2019 till 15.09.2019 and again discharged on
                                                     CriRevn-393-2025
                                    -9-

feeling well. But again on 25.10.2019, on same complaint she was

again admitted in Lifeline hospital at Beed where she gave above

statement against her husband and in-laws for ill-treating her on

account of demand of Rs.4,00,000/- for purchase of car.



10.   On above report, Patoda Police registered crime bearing no.

020 of 2019 for offences under Sections 498-A, 328, 323, 504, 504

r/w 34 of IPC against husband and in-laws i.e. present revision

petitioners. It appears that during investigation, while statements

were recorded, Aishwarya succumbed and therefore charge under

Section 302 came to be added and after completion of investigation,

challan was filed before Sessions Court, Beed, where application

Exhibit 25 was filed and decided.



11.   Prima facie from the FIR, it is emerging that there are direct

allegations against husband for putting up demand of Rs.4,00,000/-

for purchase of car for himself. Husband allegedly subjected her to

physical and mental cruelty during her stay at Kolhapur and it was he

who had dropped her at the place of her her parents-in-law. She

seems to have named parents-in-law, brother-in-law, sisters-in-law

and their husbands for also putting up demand of Rs.4,00,000/- for

purchase of car and according to her, she was abused, beaten and
                                                       CriRevn-393-2025
                                 -10-

kept starved. However, it is pertinent to note that roles of the in-laws

are not crystallized by her by stating who amongst them did what.

Apparently, sweeping allegations are made against all in-laws.

Learned counsel for revision petitioners, on court query, has pointed

out that accused no.5 (sister-in-law), her husband accused no.6,

another sister-in-law accused no.7 and her husband accused no.8 are

residents of different places. Apparently, in the report, Aishwarya has

not stated when they came towards her to put up demand, abuse her

or keep her without food. Specific instances are not stated against

them. Even statements of the witnesses which are recorded by

investigating machinery are without specific instances and details.

However, like husband, there are specific accusations against mother-

in-law Kusum, as she is named for administering some medicine,

which later triggered episodes of continuous vomiting necessitating

her admission and treatment in the hospital. Therefore, prima facie

role of even mother-in-law Kusum is getting crystallized to a greater

extent. However, as regards to rest of the revision petitioners are

concerned, as submitted, there are sweeping, general and omnibus

allegations against them.



12.   It seems that, deceased Aishwarya died on 11.11.2019.

Postmortem report, which is part of charge sheet, shows that death is
                                                       CriRevn-393-2025
                                  -11-

due to “septicemia in a cure of alleged poisoning”, however, viscera is

said to be preserved for chemical analysis and histopathological

examination. Viscera was said to be gathered and dispatched to CA on

25.11.2019 and its report is not yet received, is what is submitted by

learned APP, on court query.



13.    To sum up, here, there is prima facie material against husband-

petitioner no.1 Parmeshwar as well as mother-in-law petitioner no. 3

Kusum. Hence their revision petition is disposed off as withdrawn. As

regards to rest of the petitioners are concerned, there being general,

omnibus allegations, and there being nothing concrete to show that

they are involved in raising persistent demand and further

continuously subjecting Aishwarya to physical and mental cruelty,

and no role being attributed to them in the alleged death of

Aishwarya, they succeed. Hence, following order :


                                ORDER

I.    The Criminal Revision Application is partly allowed.


II.   Leave to withdraw the application of revision petitioner no.
      (1) Parmeshwar s/o Chagan Sasane and revision petitioner no.
      (3) Kusum w/o Chagan Sasane is granted and their application
      stands disposed off as withdrawn.
                                                     CriRevn-393-2025
                                -12-

III. Application of revision petitioner nos. 2 and 4 to 8, i.e.
      (2) Chagan s/o Girija Sasane, (4) Shivaji s/o Chagan Sasane,
      (5) Alka w/o Murlidhar Waghmare, (6) Murlidhar s/o Narayan
      Waghmare, (7) Sangita w/o Yogesh Sarode and (8) Avinash s/o
      Sudhakar Sarode is allowed in terms of prayer clauses [C] and
      [D].


IV. The Criminal Revision Application is accordingly disposed off.




                                         (ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)



vre