Rukmini Pilaji Jadhav And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra
2021 Latest Caselaw 14200 Bom

                                                                          apeal No-734-1998.doc




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.734 OF 1998

                        1. Rukmini Pilaji Jadhav
                        2. Sunita Pilaji Jadhav                      ... Appellants


                              Versus

                        The State of Maharashtra                     ... Respondent

                                                     .....
                        Mr. Irfan Shaikh, Advocate (Appointed) for the Appellants.
                        Mrs. M. M. Deshmukh, APP for the Respondent - State.
                                                     .....

                                   CORAM                   : PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.

                                   RESERVED ON             : 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2021.

                                   PRONOUNCED ON           : 1st OCTOBER, 2021.

                        JUDGMENT :-

1. This appeal is preferred under Section 374 of

Cr.P.C. challenging the conviction imposed vide Judgment and

order dated 19th September, 1998 passed by learned

Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.72 of

1994 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable

under Sections 306 & 498-A r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Digitally signed by SAJAKALI Code (for short "IPC").

SAJAKALI   LIYAKAT
LIYAKAT    JAMADAR
           Date:
JAMADAR    2021.10.01
           19:23:45
           +0530
                        SLJ                          1 of 27
                                                   apeal No-734-1998.doc

2. The appellants are original accused Nos. 2 & 3.

They are sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five

years and one year for the offences under Sections 306 &

498-A of IPC respectively.

3. The case of the prosecution is that, six years prior

to the incident of death of victim Chhaya, she was married to

accused No.1 - Dilip Pilaji Jadhav. Accused No.2 - Rukmini

Pilaji Jadhav is the mother and accused No.3 Sunita Pilaji

Jadhav is the sister of accused No.1. After marriage, victim

started cohabiting with accused No.1 at mouje Dahiwadi. The

complainant is the uncle of victim. Due to early death of

parents of victim, she was looked after by PW-2. Two years

after the marriage of Chhaya, she was harassed by accused.

They demanded wrist watch and ornaments. Demand could

not be fulfilled either by complainant or brother of Chhaya.

The accused assaulted victim Chahya and driven her out from

matrimonial home. Chhaya was requesting PW-2 to fulfill the

demand of accused No.1. She had informed him and PW-5 -

Parashram, that on account of demand of wrist watch and

ornaments, she was subjected to ill treatment by all the

SLJ 2 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

accused. For non fulfillment of demand of the accused, the

harassment and ill treatment to victim Chhaya continued. Four

months prior to death of Chhaya on account of demand of

wrist watch and ornaments, she was assaulted by accused and

driven out of house. The victim went to the house of PW-2 and

told him about said incident. Thereafter, she went to PW-5

who promise her that the demand of accused would be

fulfilled and sent her to house of the accused at Dahiwadi. On

26th August, 1993, accused No.1 had visited his pan shop.

When nobody was around in the house, Chhaya poured

kerosene on her body and set her ablaze. Persons passing by

the road informed accused No.1 and he rushed to the house.

The room from where smoke was coming out was bolted from

inside. The door was broke open. The body of Chhaya was

lying in burnt condition. Accused No.1 submitted Wardi to

Police Station about death of Chhaya. A.D. was registered at

Police Station, Dahiwadi. Inquest panchanama was recorded.

Spot panchanama was prepared. Plastic can with smell of

kerosene, match box, ash of clothes were seized from the spot.

Body of victim was referred for post mortem. The medical

SLJ 3 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

opinion was given that the victim had died due to extensive

100% burns and asphyxia, due to inhalation of smoke. After

cremation of victim, PW-2 and PW-5 reached at Dahiwadi.

Report was lodged at Police Station on 27th August, 1993. The

FIR was registered. On completing investigation, charge-sheet

was filed for offences under Sections 306 & 498-A r/w Section

34 of IPC.

4. Accused No.1 - Dilip Jadhav died during the

pendency of trial. The case was abated against him. Charge

was framed against accused Nos. 2 & 3 by order dated 3 rd July,

1998 for offence under Sections 498-A r/w Section 34 of IPC

and Section 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.

5. The prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW-1

Acchyut Kashinath Tathwadekar is the resident of Dahiwadi.

PW-2 - Mahatma Ranappa Mane is the uncle of the victim. He

is the complainant. PW-3 Shivaji Baburao Bhingare is the

panch witness to the spot panchanama. PW-4 - Ibrahim Abbas

Nadaf is the neighbour of PW-2. PW-5 - Parashram Ganpat

Mane is the brother of victim. PW-6 - Dattatray Bhujbal was

attached to the Police Station as Assistant Sub Inspector. He

SLJ 4 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

conducted investigation.

6. Statements of accused was recorded under Section

313 of Cr.P.C. The defence is that they have been falsely

implicated in this case.

7. Learned Advocate Mr. Irfan Shaikh was appointed

by the Court to represent the appellants vide order dated

12th August, 2021. He had prepared himself in the matter after

going through the paper book and made his submissions in

support of the appeal. His submissions can be summarized as

follows :-

i) The prosecution has not examined independent

witness to support charge under Sections 306 and 498-A

of IPC.

ii) There is no proximity in the incident of suicide and

the alleged ill treatment meted out to the victim.

iii) The findings of trial Court while convicting the

appellants are contrary to evidence on record.

iv) There is no evidence to convict the accused for

offence under Section 498-A of IPC.

SLJ                               5 of 27
                                                         apeal No-734-1998.doc




      v)      The prosecution has not established that the

      accused had abetted suicide.

      vi)     The son of victim and grand father of accused No.1

were present in the house. They were not examined.

vii) The incident of suicide had occurred after a period

of more than seven years from marriage hence, the

presumption under Section 113(A) is not attracted. The

evidence of witnesses does not inspire confidence.

viii) There were no previous complaints. The

allegations in the complaint are after thought.

ix) Accused No.1 rushed to his house after learning

about the smoke coming out from his house. He managed

to broke open the door with the help of axe and found

that the victim died with burn injuries. It is difficult to

accept that after a period of more than seven years, the

demand of wrist watch and ornaments continued with the

victim which had compelled her to commit suicide.

x) PW-1 has not referred to any previous quarrels and

presence of accused Nos. 2 & 3 in the house. Version of

SLJ 6 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

PW-2 is doubtful. He do not remember date of marriage.

His evidence suffers from omission.

xi) PW-3 do not know who was staying with accused

No.1 and victim. PW-4 has stated that victim was married

ten years ago. PW-5 has deposed that marriage was

performed 5 to 6 years ago. His evidence is contradictory

to PW-2. PW-6 recorded statements of only witnesses who

were parental relatives of victim.

xii) The prosecution has failed to establish charge

under Section 498-A and 306 of IPC. The prosecution

examined interested witnesses and no independent

witnesses was examined. The findings of trial Court are

contrary to evidence on record.

xiii) The allegations about cruelty are vague. The

presumption under Section 113(A) of Evidence Act

cannot be invoked in the present case.

8. Learned APP submitted that the incident in

question had occurred within seven years from the date of

marriage. The presumption under Section 113(A) can be

SLJ 7 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

invoked against the accused. The evidence of PW-2, PW-5 and

PW-4 corroborates the prosecution case that there was

continuous ill treatment and harassment to the victim. There

was demand of articles from the victim. She was assaulted.

She was driven out of matrimonial home. The harassment was

to such an extent that the victim had no other option to

commit suicide. She was instigated and compelled to commit

suicide. The ill treatment of the harassment was non bearable.

Specific overt act has been attributed to accused Nos. 2 & 3.

The evidence of PW-2, PW-4 & PW-5 is sufficient to convict

the appellants. There was physical and mental cruelty. The

victim has committed suicide in the house. Learned APP relied

on decision of Supreme Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan

V/s. State of Uttaranchal 2012 ALL MR (Cri.) (SC) 4124.

9. The accused No.1 was the husband of victim. The

accused No.2 is the mother-in-law and accused No.3 is the

sister of accused No.1. The incident in question had occurred

on 26th August, 1993. The victim had committed suicide by

bolting the door from inside. The exact date of performance of

marriage of accused No.1 and victim is not spelt out in the

SLJ 8 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

version of witnesses. The accused No.1 was not present in the

house at the time of incident. After learning about smoke

emitting from his house he rushed to house. The room where

the victim had committed suicide was closed from inside. He

broke open the door in the presence of people, who had

gathered there. The victim had sustained 100% burn injuries.

She had poured kerosene on her person and set her ablaze.

She succumbed to burn injuries. Accused No.1 forwarded

Wardi to the Police Station about the incident. ADR was

registered. PW-2 and PW-5 visited the house of the accused.

The complaint was lodged with the Police against the accused.

FIR was registered. During the trial accused No.1 has expired.

10. PW-1 - Achyut Tatawadekar has stated that he is

the resident of Dahiwadi. He knows accused No.1. He knows

his house. On 26th July, 1993 while he was returning home

from office, he saw smoke coming from the house of accused.

The accused was called. The door was latched from outside.

Grand-father of accused No.1 told him to open the door of

room with the help of axe. The door was latched from inside.

Thereafter, two to three blows were given on the door. The

SLJ 9 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

wife of accused No.1 was lying in burnt condition. Water was

poured on the her. In the cross examination he deposed that

Dilip Jadhav (accused No.1) used to conduct pan stall. It was

situated at the distance of about 200 feet from his residence.

Mother and sister of accused No.1 used to live with father of

accused No.1 at the place of his service. Parents as well as

sister of Dilip never lived at Dahiwadi with Dilip.

11. PW-2 Mahatma Ranappa Mane has stated that

after the death of parents of victim she was brought up by

him. Marriage of victim Chhaya was solemnized with Dilip

Jadhav about 8 years ago from date of his deposition. After the

marriage victim started residing at Dahiwadi with her

husband. Mother-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law of

victim were jointly residing with victim. For a period of about

two years Chhaya was treated well, thereafter, the accused ill

treated the victim by demanding wrist watch, ornaments and

money. She was assaulted by accused Nos.2 & 3. Chhaya had

complained about harassment. One month prior to the

incident she visited his house and disclosed to him about

harassment by accused. She also stated that she is tired of her

SLJ 10 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

life. She told witness to convince her husband by giving him

wrist watch and ornaments. He could not fulfill the demand

on account of financial weakness. He went to the house of

accused and convinced them on two to three occasions. The

accused continued to ill treat Chhaya. Two months prior to the

incident, Chhaya had been to Vita to the house of her brother

Parsaram. He gave silver jodvi to Chhaya. She was sent to the

house of accused. He purchased the wrist watch for the

husband of Chhaya and handed over the same to her. Chhaya

told the witness that her husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-

law ill treated her and she was fed up with her life. After

residing with him for 8 days she went to house of her brother.

On the date of incident he along with Parashram Mane went

to the house of accused at Dahiwadi. He went to Police Station

and lodged the report. In the cross examination he stated that

he is the owner of the house and agricultural property. He has

self acquired property. He was residing separately from his

brother. He do not recollect the date of marriage of Chhaya.

He denied suggestion that after the death of second son of

Chhaya she used to suffer from convulsion. Prior to the

SLJ 11 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

incident he did not lodge report to the Police Station against

accused. He also denied the suggestion that accused Nos. 2 &

3 never lived at Dahiwadi. He has not stated before the Police

that accused used to demand money. He cannot tell the exact

date on which Chhaya came to his house on the last occasion.

He denied the suggestion that Chhaya never came to his house

and never made complaint to him. He had stated to Police that

one month prior to the incident of death, Chhaya came to his

house and complained him that she is tired of her life. At the

time of report he had stated to the Police that Parashram Mane

had given wrist watch to Chhaya. He cannot assign any reason

as to why these facts are not mentioned in his report. On 27 th

August, 1993 he did not meet Parashram Mane at Dahiwadi.

12. PW-3 Shivaji Baburao Bhingare had acted as panch

witness. According to him he had been to the house of accused

Dilip Jadhav at Dahiwadi on 26th August, 1993. Police

prepared spot panchanama. Police seized one axe and empty

can. He identified the articles. Police prepared panchanama.

His signatures were obtained on the panchanama. Baban

Pawar had also signed on the panchanama. In the cross

SLJ 12 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

examination he stated that Dilip Jadhav used to conduct Pan

Stall. He did not tell who used to live with Dilip Jadhav. The

residential premises of Dilip is at the distance of one km. from

pan stall.

13. PW-4 Ibrahim Nadaf has deposed that he knows

Mahatma Ranappa Mane (PW-2). House of Mane is situated

near his house. He has good relations with PW-2. He knows

victim Chhaya. 10 years ago, Chhaya was married to Dilip

Jadhav. After about three years, Chhaya came to the house of

PW-2. On inquiry he was told that the husband of Chhaya is

demanding wrist watch and gold ornaments from her. Chhaya

told him that on account of demand of wrist watch and

ornaments she is ill treated by the accused. She was assaulted

by them. In cross examination it was stated that PW-2 is Police

Patil of Kaledhone. PW-2 and his nephew Parashram Mane

lived separately since several years. Marriage of Chhaya was

solemnized in 1993. Property of PW-2 and Parashram is

divided between them. He visited Police Station at Dahiwadi.

In 1994 he had met Chhaya. He has not stated in his

statement that three years after marriage he met Chhaya at

SLJ 13 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

the house of PW-2.

14. PW-5 - Parashram Ganpat Mane is the brother of

victim Chhaya. He stated that 5 to 6 years ago before death of

Chhaya she was married to Dilip Jadhav. PW-2 had brought up

Chhaya and him. After the marriage Chhaya was residing with

her husband Dilip, mother-in-law and sister-in-law. Two years

after the marriage, the accused started quarreling with

Chhaya. She was driven out of house. The accused were

demanding gold ornaments and wrist watch. She was

assaulted. Chhaya had visited his house at Vita. She had

disclosed that the accused are assaulting and quarrelling with

her. Five months prior to the incident Chhaya told him that the

accused had assaulted her and demanded ornaments and wrist

watch. She was ill treated. He gave Silver Jodvi to Chhaya. He

also promised that he would give wrist watch after sometime.

Chhaya returned to Dahiwadi. She used to visit to house of his

uncle. She passed away on 27th August, 1993. Thereafter, on

3rd day he visited Dahiwadi. Chhaya died due to burns. In the

cross examination, he stated that since last five to six years he

lived at Vita. He has old house and agricultural property at

SLJ 14 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

Kaledhone. He cannot say the exact year in which he visited

the house of accused. He had visited house of accused

somewhere on 18th September, 1991. He does not know

occupation of accused No.1. He never talked with him. Father

of accused No.1 was in police service at Daund. Chhaya gave

birth two children. Second child (son) was delivered at

Dahiwadi. The second child died at Vita when Chhaya came to

his house. He do not know whether Chhaya was epileptic.

After the death of second son, she was in nervous mood.

During lifetime of Chhaya he did not make any complaint with

anybody. He cannot tell the exact year in which Chhaya went

to the house of uncle. He went to Dahiwadi with PW-2. 5 to 6

villagers had accompanied them to Police Station.

15. PW-6 - Dattatraya Bhujbal was attached to the

Police Station as Assistant Police Inspector. Dilip Jadhav

(accused No.1) informed the Police about the death of his wife

due to burns. A.D.R. No. 16 of 1993 was registered on the

basis of information, he recorded Wardi of Dilip Jadhav as per

his say and signature was obtained over it. It was marked as

Exh.29. On 26th August, 1993 he prepared inquest

SLJ 15 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

panchanama and spot panchanama. On 27th August, 1993 PW-

2 lodged the report against accused. C.R. No. 56 of 1993 was

registered under Sections 306, 498-A of IPC on 30 th August,

1993. Accused was arrested on 29th August, 1993. On

completing investigation, charge-sheet was filed. In cross-

examination he stated that houses are situated at three sides

of house of accused. He recorded statements of only witnesses

who are parental relatives of victim. Uncle of deceased was

Police Patil. 4 to 5 persons came to Police Station with

complainant. Father of accused No.1 was serving in Police

Department. PW-2 had not stated before him that one month

before death of Chhaya she came to his house. He did not

state before him that Parashram had given wrist watch to

Chhaya. It was transpired during investigation that Chhaya

used to live permanently with accused Dilip.

16. The trial Court has convicted the appellants

(accused Nos. 2 & 3) for the offences as stated above. The

accused No.1 Dilip Jadhav died during the pendency of trial.

The case was abated against him. The defence of the accused

is of total denial. After completing the evidence of witnesses

SLJ 16 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

statements of accused Nos. 2 & 3 were recorded under Section

313 of Cr.P.C.

17. I have scrutinized the evidence as above. The

deceased Chhaya was married to accused No.1. The exact date

of marriage has not been spelt out by any witnesses in the

evidence. PW No.2 has stated that the marriage of accused

No.1 and deceased Chhaya was performed 8 years ago. PW

No.4 Ibrahim Nadaf has deposed that the deceased was

married to accused No.1 about 10 years ago. In the cross-

examination he stated that the deceased was married to

accused No.1 in 1993. PW No.5 Parashram Mane, who is the

brother of deceased Chhaya has deposed that Chhaya was

married to accused No.1 about 5 to 6 years ago. Thus, the

prosecution has not been established the exact date on which

the marriage between the deceased Chhaya and accused No.1

was performed. The incident of suicide had occurred on 26 th

August, 1993. Learned APP has relied upon the presumption

under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act. Section 113A

relates to presumption as to abetment of suicide by married

women. The said provision states that when the question is

SLJ 17 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

whether the commission of suicide by a women had been

abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is

shown that she had committed suicide within a period of 7

years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or

such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the

Court may presume having regard to all the other

circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted

by her husband or by such relatives of her husband. It is

pertinent to note that the date of marriage itself has not

established. The witnesses have given different versions as to

when the marriage was performed. Apart from that the

analysis of evidence would indicate that it falls short to prove

the charge that the appellants had subjected the victim to

cruelty as defined under Section 498-A of the IPC.

18. PW No.1 Acchut Kashinath Tathwadekar is

working as home guard. He is the person, who had seen

smoke emitting from the house of the accused. He sent one

person to call accused No.1 at the place of incident.

Immediately thereafter, accused No.1 came to the spot. He

peeped inside the house and noticed that the deceased had

SLJ 18 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

burnt herself. The door was latched from inside. With the aid

of axe the door was broke open and accused No.1, PW No.1 &

others entered into the premises. The deceased was found in

burnt condition. From the evidence of this witness it can be

seen that he has referred to presence of grand-father of the

accused No.1 in the premises. However, the prosecution has

not examined grand-father. It is also pertinent to note that this

witness has not referred to presence of accused Nos.

2 & 3 at the place of incident. The defence of the

appellants/accused is that they were residing at Daund with

the husband of the appellant No.1 as he was serving in Police

Department at Daund. PW No.1 has not referred to any

previous quarrels between the accused and the deceased,

although, he knows accused No.1 for many years.

19. PW No.2 Mahatma Mane is the uncle of deceased.

He has stated that the marriage of Chhaya and accused No.1

was solemnized about 8 years ago. He has also stated that all

the accused were residing together with deceased at

matrimonial home. He further deposed that 2 years after the

marriage the accused demanded wrist watch, ornaments and

SLJ 19 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

money. Chhaya had complained to him about the demand of

the accused and ill-treatment meted out to her by the accused.

According to him one month before Chhaya had told him that

the accused are causing harassment to her. About 2 months

ago Chhaya had visited the house of her brother Parashram

Mane and informed him about the ill-treatment. Parashram

Mane had purchased wrist watch and handed over the same to

Chhaya. The demand of wrist watch and ornaments had

commenced two years after the marriage. It is difficult to

believe that the same demand continues for a period of about

5 years thereafter which led the victim to commit suicide. The

version of this witness that wrist watch was purchased by

Parashram Mane and it was given to the victim is contrary to

evidence of PW No.5. This witness did not remember the date

of marriage. He admitted that brother of Chhaya stayed

separately. He also admitted that he did not file any complaint

prior to the incident to police about the harassment caused to

the victim by accused. He admitted that father-in-law of

Chhaya was serving at Daund. The cross-examination of this

witness also reflected that there were omissions in respect to

SLJ 20 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

major version of this witness. The fact that accused demanded

money was not reflected in the statement before the police.

The version of this witness that one month before the death of

Chhaya, she had come to his house and told him that she is

tired of her life is not reflected in the statement made before

the police. He did not remember the last date on which the

victim had come to his house. The complaint was lodged by

him after the funeral was over on 27th August, 1993.

20. PW No.3 Shivaji Bhingare is the panch witness for

spot. He has referred to the recording of spot panchnama and

finding of victim's body, axe and empty can at the place of

incident. The panchnama was exhibited in evidence. He has

stated that he do not know as to who used to leave with

accused No.1.

21. PW No.4 Ibrahim Nadaf is the resident of

Kaledhone. He is neighbor of PW No.2. He has stated that

victim had married to accused No.1 about 10 years ago. Three

years after the marriage, the victim Chhaya had come to the

house of PW No.2. She had stated that the accused have

demanded wrist watch and gold ornaments. Chhaya had also

SLJ 21 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

told him about the harassment caused to her and the fact that

she was assaulted by the accused. He stated that PW No.2 is

the Police Patil of village Kaledhone. In the cross-examination

he deposed that the marriage of Chhaya was performed in

1993. The version of this witness that three years after the

marriage he met Chhaya in the house of PW No.2 was not

reflected in the statement before the police and it was proved

to be omission. The evidence of this witness is hearsay. He do

not know, who was residing with victim Chhaya at the

matrimonial home.

22. PW No.5 Parashram Ganpat Mane is the brother of

deceased Chhaya. According to him Chhaya was married 5 to

6 years ago. Two years after the marriage accused had

quarrelled with her. He deposed that the harassment was

caused to Chhaya on account of her uncle had not given gold

ornaments and wrist watch in the marriage. She was assaulted

and driven out. He told Chhaya that he would give wrist

watch. However, his evidence does not corroborate version of

PW No.2 that he had purchased wrist watch and handed over

the same to deceased Chhaya. He was residing at Vita. He

SLJ 22 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

admitted that he has agricultural property at Kaledhone. He

has also stated that second son of victim and accused No.1 had

died at Vita when the victim was at his residence. He did not

lodge any complaint in the past against the accused about

harassment caused to the victim.

23. PW No.6 Dattatrya Bhujbal is the Investigating

Officer. He has stated that there are houses on three sides of

house of accused. The father of the accused No.1 is in service

of police Department. He recorded statements of witnesses

who were parental relatives of the deceased. The omissions

were proved through the evidence of this witness. He also

stated that after receipt of information from accused No.1

A. D. was registered having numbered as 16 of 1993. Wardi of

accused No.1 was recorded which was exhibited in evidence as

Exh.29. He has not disclosed whether the statement of any of

the neighbors of accused were recorded by him during the

Course of investigation. From his evidence it is apparent that

after the incident, the accused No.1 had immediately given

information to the police and A.D. was registered. The Wardi

of accused No.1 (Exh.29) mention that the victim was residing

SLJ 23 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

with accused No.1 and the grand-father of accused No.1. It is

pertinent to note that after the cross-examination of this

witness the prosecution had sought permission to cross-

examine him which prayer was declined by the Court. The

Court however, questioned him about his version that the

victim was permanently residing with accused No.1 is based

on what evidence. He stated that the Wardi of accused No.1

recorded by him mentions about the said fact.

24. From the evidence it is apparent that the

prosecution has not established charges beyond reasonable

doubt that the appellants were residing with accused No.1

and deceased at Dahivadi. It is admitted that the husband of

appellant No.1 was in Police Department and he was serving

at Daund. None of the neighbours of the accused were

examined by the prosecution. The allegations and harassment

is not corroborated by the evidence of any independent

witnesses. The presence of the appellants at the place of

incident itself is doubtful. PW No.1 is the first person who had

seen smoke coming out from the house of the accused. On

opening the door of house, he went inside. He has not referred

SLJ 24 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

to presence of accused Nos. 2 and 3 at the seen of offence.

Although, the grand-father was present in the house, he has

not been examined by the prosecution. It is not clear whether

statements of grand father was recorded during the course of

investigation. Except PW No.2, PW No.4 and PW No.5 none of

the witness as referred to the alleged harassment meted out to

the victim. The date of marriage is not clearly spelt out. The

incident of harassment had begun after the period of two

years from the date of marriage. The witnesses have referred

to the said incident which had occurred after two years.

Thereafter, there is no reference of any incident of harassment

being referred to by the witnesses. It is alleged that the

demand of wrist watch and ornaments had continued. It is

difficult to believe that after a period of about 5 to 6 years the

accused would demand the wrist watch and gold ornaments

from the victim. It is difficult to invoke the presumption under

the Evidence Act. Even assuming that the incident had

occurred within a period of 7 years from the date of marriage,

there is no cogent evidence to prove that there was demand or

harassment caused by the accused to compel the victim to

SLJ 25 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

commit suicide. The evidence of witnesses suffers from

omissions and contradictions. There was no previous

complaint. The conduct of accused No.1 reflects that

immediately after the incident he had reported the incident to

the police and Wardi was recorded. On the next date the

complainant had visited village Dahivadi and lodged

complaint with the police. There is no proximity in the

incident of the suicide and the alleged harassment caused to

the victim.

25. Learned APP has relied upon the decision of the

Apex Court in the case of Pravin Pradhan Vs. State of

Uttaranchal (supra). The Apex Court has referred to several

decisions which deal with the ingredients to constitute the

offence under Section 306 of IPC. The fact of the case in the

said decision would defer from the present case. It was

observed that instigation has to be gathered from the

circumstances of a particular case. No straight jacket formula

can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case

there has been instigation which forced the person to commit

suicide. In the present case there is no cogent evidence to

SLJ 26 of 27 apeal No-734-1998.doc

establish that the appellants have caused harassment to the

victim to such an extent to compel her to commit suicide. It is

necessary to note that the presence of the appellants at the

house of accused No.1 has not been established beyond doubt.

The defence of the appellants that they were residing with the

husband of the appellant No.1 appears to be probable. Apart

from that the evidence relating to the cruelty is not established

beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances the

conviction of the accused deserved to be set aside.

26. Hence, I pass the following order :-

ORDER

(i) Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 1998 is allowed.

(ii) Judgment and order dated 19th September, 1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Satara in Sessions Case No.72 of 1994 convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 306 & 498-A r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code is set aside and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges.

(iii) Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                                          (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.)


SLJ                                27 of 27