Tag: BombayHighCourt

-Report by Annette Abraham

In a curious turn of events, the Bombay High Court on Friday granted a reduced sentence to the accused in the Sitaram Dada Sarode v. State of Maharashtra case on the grounds of an inconsistent timeline and the occurrence of grave provocation. The accused, an ayurvedic medic, had been convicted of murdering his wife, Sangita Sarode, a pharmacist.

FACTS

The accused married Sangita in 1993. Though they initially lived in Manmad together, Sangita and their children moved to Pune as she secured a job as a pharmacist in the city. Mr. Sitaram would visit his wife and children around once every fortnight. The incident occurred on the evening of 30th August 2008 on one such visit to Pune. Sangita and her children lived at the residence of her mother Shantabai. Here, a supposed quarrel between the accused and his wife resulted in her sustaining a head injury as well as multiple burn wounds.

Sangita was rushed to the hospital where Dr. Govind Kamble recorded Sangita’s statement wherein she stated that Sitaram questioned her fidelity and in rage, hit her on the back of the head and poured a burning substance over her before fleeing the scene. On the basis of this statement, her mother filed a complaint and Sitaram was arrested on 30th August 2008 under Sections 307, 498-A and 504. A second dying declaration was collected by the Head Constable in the evening that day that stated the same.

Sangita succumbed to her injuries six days after the incident on 5th September 2008 and her body was sent for an autopsy. Dr. Ajay Taware conducted the autopsy, concluding that Sangita had sustained 40% burn injuries, the primary cause of death, in addition to a haematoma in her scalp and a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage in her brain. Charges against Sitaram were filed under Sections 302, 498-A and 504, however, the accused denied all of them, pleading not guilty. The defence pleaded in the Sessions Court that:

a. The burn wounds sustained by Sangita were caused not due to acid but by fire. On the day of the incident because of the Pola festival, Sangita was preparing food and the over-flaming of the stove caused her injuries.

b. The accused did not have cordial relationships with Shantabai and his brother-in-law Bajirao Masal, who was also present on the day of the incident, and hence they had falsely implicated him and enticed Sitaram’s son to testify against him as well. The Additional Sessions Court found Sitaram to be guilty and sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹1000/- for the crimes of murder as well as cruelty.

Appellant’s Argument

Mr. Sitaram and his counsel Mr. Pawan Mali raised the matter before the High Court of Bombay requesting the honourable bench to review the legality of the order passed in the sessions court.
The Appellant’s contentions were as follows:

1. Discrepancies in the Timeline Presented –
   The main contention with the timelines lay in the statements collected from Sangita. In the first dying declaration recorded by Dr. Govind Kamble at 6:30 p.m., Sangita’s right leg thumb impression is taken as a signature owing to the fact that both her hands were severely burnt. However, this statement was only signed at 9:30 p.m., 3 hours after it was collected. Even more curiously, in the statement collected by the Head Constable of Police around 9:30 p.m, Sangita’s signature was given as validation. This is a clear contradiction to the circumstances of the first declaration recorded earlier in the day. Hence, the second declaration must be considered void.
2. Incomplete Evidence –
   The combined case papers of Sangita that detailed her treatment in the 6 days preceding her death revealed that she had been treated with Silver sulphate. Further, Dr. Pandit and Dr. Shinde, who administered her immediate treatment, noted that she sustained approximately 45% of burns that seemed to be largely flame burns. Dr. Shinde
   and Dr. Pandit, as well as Dr. Sarala Gandhi who administered anaesthesia to Sangit had not been examined by the prosecution.
3. Provocation –
   From the statements of the main witnesses, it is discernible that constant quarrels used to occur between the married couple and that these often resulted in physical violence.

The appellant, calling upon the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar v. State of Chhattisgarh, contended that the constant and unceasing nature of the altercations that occurred over the course of their marriage caused mental turmoil to Sitaram. It was stated that this falls under the ambit of Exception I of Section 300 of the IPC which granted that continuous provocation or torment can be considered equivalent to a singular grave provocation. Under this provision, Sangita’s death would amount not to murder but to culpable homicide.

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court came to the conclusion that though the accused was responsible for Sangita’s death, the constant provocation caused the accused to temporarily lose the sense of right and wrong and commit the offence and that the murder was not premeditated or planned. Hence, it falls under the ambit of section 304 of the IPC, culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

As such, the honourable court ruled that a life sentence was too hefty a punishment and the judgement of the Sessions Court was overruled. Sitaram’s sentence was reduced to 10 years a fine of ₹50,000/- was imposed. Since Sitaram had already served 14 years under imprisonment between 2008 and 2022, the court ordered that he be released forthwith.

-Report by Nishtha Tiwari

In the case of Ariz Kohli v. Tehzeeb Kohli, Tehzeeb Kohli filed an application in the year 2018 for restitution of Conjugal rights. After two years she amended the application and filed it for divorce which stated that marriage could not be saved and her husband’s conduct revealed that restitution cannot take place. This application was allowed by Bandra Family Court but was then challenged by the husband in the High court.

Respondent’s Advocate Malcolm Siganporia stated, that for all purposes provisions of the CPC will be applicable and for Family Court also, provisions of Civil Procedure Court would be equally applicable.

Petitioner’s Advocate Rafique Dada stated that delicate and sensitive matrimonial matters must be dealt with liberty and with previous judgments given to the restoration of normal marriages and if cannot happen, dissolution must be
permitted.

Justice Dangre said that the relief sought by way of an amendment is conflicting with the original reliefs which can be granted by the application. The high court set aside the order passed by the family court by stating that they failed in considering the true summary of the provision permitting the grant of the amendment.

–Report by Apurva Jain

Born in 1955, the 66-year-old is currently a resident of Andheri. She had applied to the deputy collector but her application got rejected due to some error on her account in 2019. Therefore she has approached the court for directing the authorities to reconsider the application.

Her advocate, Aditya Chitale informed the division bench of Justices S V Gangapurwala and S M Modak, that she had accidentally mentioned in her application that her visa was valid only till 2019. This resulted in the rejection of her application.

The petitioner has been trying to get an Indian passport, however, she did not possess the requisite documents and was hence asked to acquire an Indian Citizenship. The advocate Advait Sethna, representing the Ministry of External Affairs assured her that the Centre is not treating the petition as adversarial and asked her to approach the embassy of Uganda for relevant documents.

–Report by Rhea Mistry

In the case of Monika Sharma v. Mukesh Bhagal, the court disposed of the appeal for annulment of the marriage of Monika Sharma due to the bar of limitation.

The appellant is a graduate of Master of Science from Singhania University in Rajasthan and is not known the age, education, and occupation of the respondent. She is an officer at the Union Bank of India in Mumbai. The appellant and respondent, both are Hindus. Monika Sharma, the appellant knew the respondent since the year 2000.

In the appeal, the appellant asserted that in the year 2003 when she was pursuing her 10th-grade studies and was of 14-15 years of age, the respondent made his first physical contact under duress with her and clicked obscene photographs. The respondent had threatened her he would leak her obscene photographs if she told anyone about his actions. Monika was suffering silently as she comes from a very religious family in the State of Haryana where the Khap Panchayat is practiced.

This continued till 2008 when she moved to pursue her higher studies. When the appellant returned in 2010, the respondent threatened to defame her and her family and disfigure her by throwing acid on her if she didn’t marry him.

In 2011, when the appellant was working as a teacher at a Coaching Centre, the respondent slapped her in front of everyone just because the appellant had refused to go out with him. The appellant had secured a job as a single-window operator at a branch of Punjab National Bank located in the village Dhanora and was staying in a PG. The respondent constantly pressurized her for marrying him taking the advantage of her situation.

On December 28th, 2011, the respondent called the appellant to come out of her office, or else he would create a fiasco there. On going out of the office the respondent took the appellant’s phone, pulled her into the car, and gave a prasad to eat. The prasad was spiked and the appellant wasn’t aware of it, but, later, realized it. After eating the spiked prasad, the appellant had become helpless and a silent observer of the events unfolding with her. She remembered that on the way the respondent picked up his friends, took her to a mandir, clicked some photos, and made her sign some blank papers. And on the next day, 29th December 2011, the respondent dropped her at her office. The respondent had threatened her not to reveal the incidents or else he would harm her and her family.

In March 2012, the appellant shifted to Mumbai as she got the opportunity to work at Union Bank of India, the respondent followed her to Mumbai and harassed her continuously to come and live with him. When the appellant refused all his proposals, he again threatened to leak her photographs. In April 2012, the respondent left Mumbai after threatening the appellant that if she does not marry him, he would kill her parents in Haryana. The respondent came back to Mumbai and started extorting money from the appellant. The respondent continued his force, abuse, and harassment. His family started exerting pressure on her to marry him, so the appellant informed them about the respondent’s behavior and actions, still, the family did not pay any heed and pressured her to marry him. The appellant claimed the respondent also sexually and physically abused her once which left her mentally sick for some time.

In November 2013, gaining courage, she canceled her cards as she had given them to the respondent for use. On December 3rd, 2013, the appellant informed her parents about the incidents and the events following which the parents filed a complaint against the respondent. Upon this, the respondent filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the Court of Civil Judge at Bilaspur on 17th January 2014 under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
This was the first time the appellant came to know that the respondent purported to be her supposed husband. The appellant had not gone forward with her complaint, but in July 2014, with her lawyer, she filed a complaint and went forward with it. A crime was registered under sections 376, 366, 354, 506 (2) of the Indian Penal Code and 9 of 25 under section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 against the respondent and she had filed her statement at Bilaspur.

The court stated that the appellant was suffering since 2003 when she was of 14-15 years, and when she was of 18 years in 2007, she did not file a complaint and kept silent. After 6 years, the appellant has filed her complaint. There are just her bare words and no verification from any source, including her parents, brothers, sisters, or Union Bank of
India personnel. There is also no evidence of alleged extortion of a considerable amount by manipulating her debit card, which might have easily been obtained as electronic evidence. There is also no evidence of a medical evaluation of the appellant, who claims that the respondent sexually exploited, and subjected her to unnatural intercourse.
The court said that the overall evidence is improbable, unbelievable, and unacceptable.

The judge held that once the appellant came to know that she was forcefully taken to a mandir, the force and fraud ceased to exist. If the aforementioned truth was known on December 29, 2011, the petition might have been presented within a year. Nothing stopped her, and thus the bar under sub-section-2 of Section 12 of the Act operates in the relevant facts and circumstances.

The appeal made is without any substance and stands dismissed.