Mithailal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 1993
Petitioner: Mithailal and Others
Respondent: State of Maharashtra
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 661 of 1993
Judges: G.N. RAY & S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 28, 1996
Head Note:
CRIMINAL
Indian Penal Code,1860
Section 302 – Murder – Wife not accepted by husband – Wife not inclined to leave – Shifting to cattle shed without doors – Several months before death, FIR lodged by husband about threats by wife to die of starvation – Evidence showing wife being molested and assault by some of accused – Also wife shown to be visiting neighbours where food was given – No evidence of wife being confined and not allowed access to food and drink. Held that no conviction of murder of wife on account of starva-tion, is warranted. Appeal allowed.
Indian Penal Code,1860
Section 302 – Murder – Wife not accepted by husband – Wife not inclined to leave – Shifting to cattle shed without doors – Several months before death, FIR lodged by husband about threats by wife to die of starvation – Evidence showing wife being molested and assault by some of accused – Also wife shown to be visiting neighbours where food was given – No evidence of wife being confined and not allowed access to food and drink. Held that no conviction of murder of wife on account of starva-tion, is warranted. Appeal allowed.
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. In this appeal the conviction of the appellants for the offence of murder by creating a situation by which Sita Bai the wife of Appellant 1 Mithailal had to meet death on account of starvation and consequential sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge since upheld by the High Court are under chal-lenge. From the deposition adduced in the case through which we have been taken by Mr R.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it appears that the husband Mithailal was in no mood to accept his wife, the deceased Sita Bai. Sita Bai was also not in a mood to leave the husband’s place but insisted on staying in the said house though not in the residential rooms but in a cattle shed within the house complex. It has also come out in the evidence that several months before the actual death of Sita Bai, the husband had lodged an FIR with the local police station that the wife had not been taking any food and was threatening to die for the purpose of implicating the husband and other members of the family. It has also come out in the evidence that an attempt for rapprochement was made earlier and the broth-ers of the deceased Sita Bai had also come but unfortunately no adjustment had taken place between Sita Bai and the accused. As a result, Sita Bai started living in a cattle shed with no doors. There is evidence that a few days before her death, she alleged molestation and assault by some of the accused. It has also come out in evidence that occasionally to meet the urge for food because of hunger, Sita Bai had come to the neighbours’ place where some food was given to her. From the aforesaid facts,it cannot be held that the deceased Sita Bai was forced to remain in starvation so that ultimately she may die of starvation. Sita Bai was otherwise free and she could move to any place if she liked. From the evidence adduced in this case, it has transpired that the wife was not acceptable to the husband and members of the husband’s family and they did not take any care of the wife and did not supply any food or other essential articles to her. But there is no evidence to indicate that the wife was confined and was not allowed access to food and drink due to which she ul-timately met her death on account of starvation. Though it is highly lamentable that Sita Bai had met a premature death, we do not think that a conviction for murder on account of forcing starvation on Sita Bai is warranted in the facts of the case. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge since affirmed by the High Court. Appellants 1 and 2 are in custody. They are directed to be released if they are not wanted in connection with any other case. The other appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds will stand discharged.
1. In this appeal the conviction of the appellants for the offence of murder by creating a situation by which Sita Bai the wife of Appellant 1 Mithailal had to meet death on account of starvation and consequential sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge since upheld by the High Court are under chal-lenge. From the deposition adduced in the case through which we have been taken by Mr R.K. Jain, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, it appears that the husband Mithailal was in no mood to accept his wife, the deceased Sita Bai. Sita Bai was also not in a mood to leave the husband’s place but insisted on staying in the said house though not in the residential rooms but in a cattle shed within the house complex. It has also come out in the evidence that several months before the actual death of Sita Bai, the husband had lodged an FIR with the local police station that the wife had not been taking any food and was threatening to die for the purpose of implicating the husband and other members of the family. It has also come out in the evidence that an attempt for rapprochement was made earlier and the broth-ers of the deceased Sita Bai had also come but unfortunately no adjustment had taken place between Sita Bai and the accused. As a result, Sita Bai started living in a cattle shed with no doors. There is evidence that a few days before her death, she alleged molestation and assault by some of the accused. It has also come out in evidence that occasionally to meet the urge for food because of hunger, Sita Bai had come to the neighbours’ place where some food was given to her. From the aforesaid facts,it cannot be held that the deceased Sita Bai was forced to remain in starvation so that ultimately she may die of starvation. Sita Bai was otherwise free and she could move to any place if she liked. From the evidence adduced in this case, it has transpired that the wife was not acceptable to the husband and members of the husband’s family and they did not take any care of the wife and did not supply any food or other essential articles to her. But there is no evidence to indicate that the wife was confined and was not allowed access to food and drink due to which she ul-timately met her death on account of starvation. Though it is highly lamentable that Sita Bai had met a premature death, we do not think that a conviction for murder on account of forcing starvation on Sita Bai is warranted in the facts of the case. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge since affirmed by the High Court. Appellants 1 and 2 are in custody. They are directed to be released if they are not wanted in connection with any other case. The other appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds will stand discharged.
