Full Judgment Text
2026:BHC-AUG:1963-DB
1 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.319 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra …. APPELLANT
(Original Complainant)
VERSUS
1. Sangaram s/o Dadarao Digole,
Age : 28 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
2. Dadarao s/o Ramrao Digole,
Age : 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
3. Sau. Gangabai w/o Dadarao Digole,
Age : 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
All R/o.: Rohina, Tq. Chakur,
District : Latur …. RESPONDENTS
(Original Accused)
….
Mr. P. S. Patil, A.P.P. for Appellant – State
Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
….
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : 16/01/2026.
JUDGMENT : (PER : Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. The appellant–State has challenged the acquittal of the
present respondents–accused in Sessions Case No.29 of 2002 from
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with
2 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the learned
Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur (hereinafter referred to as
“the learned Trial Judge”), vide judgment and order dated
15.01.2014 in the aforesaid case.
2. According to the prosecution, one Meera @ Ranjana, daughter
of PW-3 Gangadhar, was married to respondent No.1, Sangram
Digole, on 8th May 1999. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her in-laws.
For about one and a half years after the marriage, the
respondents/accused treated her well; however, thereafter, they
began harassing Meera on account of a demand of Rs.1,00,000/-
for starting a business. The deceased, Meera, visited her parental
home and informed her family members—namely, PW-3 (father
Gangadhar), PW-4 (brother Sugriv) and PW-7 (cousin Mahananda)
about the demands and expressed fear that the respondents would
kill her if the demands were not fulfilled.
However, on 17.04.2001, at about 11.30 a.m., respondent
No.2 came to the house of PW-3 and informed him that Meera was
angry because her gold ornaments had been sold. Respondent
No.2 also requested PW-3 to accompany him to Mahandol to
“pacify” her. Accordingly, when PW-3 Gangadhar accompanied
respondent No.2, they met a person from Mahandol on the way to
3 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
Udgir, who informed them about the death of Meera. Thereupon,
Gangadhar returned to Loni, gathered his relatives and again
proceeded to Mahandol and reached there at about 3.30 p.m.
Upon noticing injuries on Meera’s neck as well as above her
right eye, they lodged a report with Udgir (Rural) Police Station,
accusing the respondents/accused. PW-8, Dr. Shrirang Akashe,
conducted the post-mortem examination and found that the cause
of death of Meera was “asphyxia due to strangulation or hanging.”
As such, suspecting that the accused had committed the murder of
Meera by throttling on non-fulfillment of their illegal demand, the
prosecution charge-sheeted them under the aforesaid sections.
However, the learned Trial Judge, after conducting the trial,
acquitted all the respondents-accused of the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned APP for the appellant–State vehemently argued
that the learned Trial Judge failed to properly appreciate the
evidence on record and ignored the medical opinion, wherein it was
stated that the strangulation mark was not possible to have been
caused by a Saree, thereby ruling out suicidal death. He further
submitted that since the incident occurred inside the house of the
respondents–accused, they were under an obligation to explain the
circumstances under which Meera died. According to him, in the
4 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
absence of any such explanation, the learned Trial Judge ought to
have inferred that the accused Sangram, with the help of the other
accused, had strangulated Meera to death.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents–
accused strongly resisted the submissions advanced by the learned
APP and supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the
learned Trial Judge, on the basis of the evidence on record, had
rightly come to the conclusion that none of the respondents–
accused were present in the house when Meera committed suicide.
He further pointed out that, as per the prosecution case itself,
when the complainant, i.e., Meera’s father, was on his way to pacify
her as she was upset due to the accused having sold her gold
ornaments, a message was received informing him that she had
committed suicide. He submitted that there is no eyewitness to the
incident and unless it is established that the respondents–accused
were present in the house at the time of the incident, no obligation
can be cast upon them to offer any plausible explanation.
5. Heard the learned APP for the appellant–State as well as the
learned counsel for the respondents-accused. Also perused the
5 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
entire oral and documentary evidence on record along with the
impugned judgment.
6. It is to be noted that there is no eyewitness to the incident
and it has also come on record that at the time of the incident, all
the accused were not present at home. Further, according to the
prosecution, Meera was strangulated to death as no ligature
material was found at the spot. However, PW-8 Dr. Akashe had
initially opined that the injuries in cases of manual strangulation
as well as suicidal hanging appear similar in nature. In these
circumstances, it is required to be ascertained whether the death of
Meera was homicidal or suicidal.
7. Though the Medical Officer, i.e., PW-8 Dr. Akashe, in his chief
examination stated that the injury to the neck of the deceased was
not possible to have been caused by a Saree, thereby discarding the
possibility of suicide, but in his cross-examination he clearly
admitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased indicated
positive signs of hanging as compared to strangulation. Moreover,
he further admitted that he agreed with the suggestion that all the
findings noted in the post-mortem notes were more in favour of
death by hanging rather than strangulation. In view of these
6 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
admissions made by the expert witness, it can safely be inferred
that the deceased had committed suicide, particularly when the
prosecution failed to establish that the accused were present at the
spot at the time of the incident.
8. Further, in paragraph 24 of the judgment, the learned Trial
Judge has observed that, despite being on duty, PSI Surve, the
Investigating Officer, did not make any effort to trace the rope or
Saree alleged to have been used by the deceased for hanging
herself, particularly when, during the course of evidence, it had
come on record that the dead body of the deceased was found in a
hanging condition, as stated by various persons from village
Mahandol. It was further observed that the prosecution, in order
to suppress the factum of suicidal death, did not examine any of
those persons. Moreover, it was found that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses fell short of establishing that any of the
accused persons were present at the time of the incident. Thus,
considering all these facts, the acquittal recorded by the learned
Trial Judge appears to be proper.
9. It is well settled that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take
the place of proof. In the present case, it appears that the
7 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Further, considering the limited scope of an
appeal against acquittal, it is not permissible to interfere with the
impugned judgment merely because another view is possible.
Therefore, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment.
As such, the appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )
VS Maind/-
1 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.319 OF 2004
The State of Maharashtra …. APPELLANT
(Original Complainant)
VERSUS
1. Sangaram s/o Dadarao Digole,
Age : 28 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
2. Dadarao s/o Ramrao Digole,
Age : 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
3. Sau. Gangabai w/o Dadarao Digole,
Age : 52 years, Occu.: Agriculture,
All R/o.: Rohina, Tq. Chakur,
District : Latur …. RESPONDENTS
(Original Accused)
….
Mr. P. S. Patil, A.P.P. for Appellant – State
Mr. V. R. Dhorde, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3
….
CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND
ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.
DATED : 16/01/2026.
JUDGMENT : (PER : Sandipkumar C. More, J.) :
1. The appellant–State has challenged the acquittal of the
present respondents–accused in Sessions Case No.29 of 2002 from
the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 498-A read with
2 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, as recorded by the learned
Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Latur (hereinafter referred to as
“the learned Trial Judge”), vide judgment and order dated
15.01.2014 in the aforesaid case.
2. According to the prosecution, one Meera @ Ranjana, daughter
of PW-3 Gangadhar, was married to respondent No.1, Sangram
Digole, on 8th May 1999. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are her in-laws.
For about one and a half years after the marriage, the
respondents/accused treated her well; however, thereafter, they
began harassing Meera on account of a demand of Rs.1,00,000/-
for starting a business. The deceased, Meera, visited her parental
home and informed her family members—namely, PW-3 (father
Gangadhar), PW-4 (brother Sugriv) and PW-7 (cousin Mahananda)
about the demands and expressed fear that the respondents would
kill her if the demands were not fulfilled.
However, on 17.04.2001, at about 11.30 a.m., respondent
No.2 came to the house of PW-3 and informed him that Meera was
angry because her gold ornaments had been sold. Respondent
No.2 also requested PW-3 to accompany him to Mahandol to
“pacify” her. Accordingly, when PW-3 Gangadhar accompanied
respondent No.2, they met a person from Mahandol on the way to
3 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
Udgir, who informed them about the death of Meera. Thereupon,
Gangadhar returned to Loni, gathered his relatives and again
proceeded to Mahandol and reached there at about 3.30 p.m.
Upon noticing injuries on Meera’s neck as well as above her
right eye, they lodged a report with Udgir (Rural) Police Station,
accusing the respondents/accused. PW-8, Dr. Shrirang Akashe,
conducted the post-mortem examination and found that the cause
of death of Meera was “asphyxia due to strangulation or hanging.”
As such, suspecting that the accused had committed the murder of
Meera by throttling on non-fulfillment of their illegal demand, the
prosecution charge-sheeted them under the aforesaid sections.
However, the learned Trial Judge, after conducting the trial,
acquitted all the respondents-accused of the aforesaid offences.
3. The learned APP for the appellant–State vehemently argued
that the learned Trial Judge failed to properly appreciate the
evidence on record and ignored the medical opinion, wherein it was
stated that the strangulation mark was not possible to have been
caused by a Saree, thereby ruling out suicidal death. He further
submitted that since the incident occurred inside the house of the
respondents–accused, they were under an obligation to explain the
circumstances under which Meera died. According to him, in the
4 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
absence of any such explanation, the learned Trial Judge ought to
have inferred that the accused Sangram, with the help of the other
accused, had strangulated Meera to death.
4. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the respondents–
accused strongly resisted the submissions advanced by the learned
APP and supported the impugned judgment. According to him, the
learned Trial Judge, on the basis of the evidence on record, had
rightly come to the conclusion that none of the respondents–
accused were present in the house when Meera committed suicide.
He further pointed out that, as per the prosecution case itself,
when the complainant, i.e., Meera’s father, was on his way to pacify
her as she was upset due to the accused having sold her gold
ornaments, a message was received informing him that she had
committed suicide. He submitted that there is no eyewitness to the
incident and unless it is established that the respondents–accused
were present in the house at the time of the incident, no obligation
can be cast upon them to offer any plausible explanation.
5. Heard the learned APP for the appellant–State as well as the
learned counsel for the respondents-accused. Also perused the
5 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
entire oral and documentary evidence on record along with the
impugned judgment.
6. It is to be noted that there is no eyewitness to the incident
and it has also come on record that at the time of the incident, all
the accused were not present at home. Further, according to the
prosecution, Meera was strangulated to death as no ligature
material was found at the spot. However, PW-8 Dr. Akashe had
initially opined that the injuries in cases of manual strangulation
as well as suicidal hanging appear similar in nature. In these
circumstances, it is required to be ascertained whether the death of
Meera was homicidal or suicidal.
7. Though the Medical Officer, i.e., PW-8 Dr. Akashe, in his chief
examination stated that the injury to the neck of the deceased was
not possible to have been caused by a Saree, thereby discarding the
possibility of suicide, but in his cross-examination he clearly
admitted that the injuries sustained by the deceased indicated
positive signs of hanging as compared to strangulation. Moreover,
he further admitted that he agreed with the suggestion that all the
findings noted in the post-mortem notes were more in favour of
death by hanging rather than strangulation. In view of these
6 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
admissions made by the expert witness, it can safely be inferred
that the deceased had committed suicide, particularly when the
prosecution failed to establish that the accused were present at the
spot at the time of the incident.
8. Further, in paragraph 24 of the judgment, the learned Trial
Judge has observed that, despite being on duty, PSI Surve, the
Investigating Officer, did not make any effort to trace the rope or
Saree alleged to have been used by the deceased for hanging
herself, particularly when, during the course of evidence, it had
come on record that the dead body of the deceased was found in a
hanging condition, as stated by various persons from village
Mahandol. It was further observed that the prosecution, in order
to suppress the factum of suicidal death, did not examine any of
those persons. Moreover, it was found that the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses fell short of establishing that any of the
accused persons were present at the time of the incident. Thus,
considering all these facts, the acquittal recorded by the learned
Trial Judge appears to be proper.
9. It is well settled that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take
the place of proof. In the present case, it appears that the
7 Judgment in Cri.Aappeal 319-2004
prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. Further, considering the limited scope of an
appeal against acquittal, it is not permissible to interfere with the
impugned judgment merely because another view is possible.
Therefore, we do not find any perversity in the impugned judgment.
As such, the appeal is devoid of merit and dismissed accordingly.
( ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J. ) ( SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE , J. )
VS Maind/-