Page 1

1

Non-Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2017

ANANDA BAPU PUNDE @ KOLI          ... Appellant

    Versus

BALASAHEB ANNA KOLI & ORS.              … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, husband and mother-in-law of one Poonam

were tried for having committed her murder within 7 years of marriage with

the Respondent No.1.  According to the prosecution, at about 8:00 a.m. on

11.06.2002 a message was received by PW 3 Ananda-father of Poonam that

she  was  missing  since  previous  night,  whereafter  the  father,  mother  and

other persons from the family reached the house of Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

On 12.06.2002, the body of Poonam was found in a well.  This led to the

lodging of FIR Ext.164 by PW 3 Ananda. The Inquest panchanama Ext.13

showed that no injuries were found on the neck, throat or other parts of the

Page 2

2

body of said Poonam.  According to Post mortem report Ext.14 the cause of

death was asphyxia due to drowning.  After due investigation,  charge-sheet

was filed and charges  were framed against  Respondent  Nos.1 and 2 and

father of Respondent No.1 (who died during the pendency of the trial) for

the offences punishable under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 and 302 read with

Section 34 IPC by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ichalkaranji in

Sessions Case No.6 of 2005.

2. In  support  of  its  case,  the  prosecution  principally  relied  upon  the

evidence  of  PW  3  Ananda-father,  PW  4  Sarjerao-brother  and  PW  5

Shalan-mother of the deceased Poonam.  According to their testimony, the

marriage had taken place on 05.05.1996 and the couple was blessed with a

daughter and a son; that two to three years after the marriage the accused

started demanding Rs.50,000/-, refrigerator, sofa set and five tolas of gold by

way of dowry and since these demands were not fulfilled, the in-laws of

Poonam were harassing her physically and mentally.  It was further stated

that Respondent No.1 had illicit relation with another lady.   

3. The trial court by its judgment and order dated 28.06.2012 acquitted

Respondent Nos.1 and 2 of all the charges leveled against them.  According

to the trial court the death was as a result of drowning and since there were

Page 3

3

no marks of any physical injury on the body, the case that Poonam was done

to death earlier and thereafter her body was thrown into the well, could not

be accepted.  As regards demands for dowry and cruelty in respect thereof,

the  trial  court  found that  the  prosecution  had completely failed  to  prove

these aspects.  It was observed that PWs 3, 4 and 5 had not supported the

case of prosecution on material aspects and were in fact declared hostile.

The  trial  court  thus  observed  that  none  of  the  charges  leveled  by  the

prosecution were substantiated by evidence on record.   

4. Being aggrieved, Criminal Appeal No.787 of 2013 was preferred by

the appellant i.e. PW 3 Ananda challenging the judgment of acquittal.  The

High  Court  after  going  through  the  matter  was  in  agreement  with  the

assessment  made  by  the  trial  court  and  by  its  Order  dated  13.09.2013

dismissed said Criminal Appeal.   

5. This  appeal  by  special  leave  seeks  to  challenge  the  judgments  of

acquittal rendered by the trial court and the High Court.   

6. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the record.

7. Inquest panchanama Ext.13 and post mortem report Ext.14 show that

there were no marks of injury on the body and that the deceased had died as

a  result  of  drowning.   Thus,  the  theory  that  Poonam was  done to  death

Page 4

4

earlier and thereafter her body was thrown into the well,  was rightly not

accepted by the Courts below.  As regards demands for dowry the evidence

unfolded through the family members of the deceased namely PWs 3, 4 and

5 is completely sketchy and does not establish the case at all.  All these three

witnesses  were  declared  hostile.   Even  according  to  their  testimony  the

couple  lived  happily  for  two  to  three  years  and  was  blessed  with  two

children.   Nothing has been established on record as to the demands for

dowry and regarding harassment or cruelty.  PW 3 Ananda went on to state

that two days prior to the incident Poonam had seen Respondent No.1 in a

compromising position with another lady.  This part was rightly not accepted

by the Courts below as amounting to cruelty or harassment enough to bring

the case under Section 306 of IPC.

8. In the circumstances the Courts below were completely justified in

acquitting the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 of the charges leveled against them.

We find no error in their judgments and therefore dismiss the present appeal.

     ….…………………….J.  (Adarsh Kumar Goel)

     ………………………..J.  (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, March 09, 2017