JUDGMENT
P.S. Brahme, J.
1. This appeal is against the judgment and order dated 25.10.1990, whereunder respondents were acquitted of offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A and 304B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in Sessions Case No. 91/89, by Additional Sessions Judge, Buldhana.
2. The prosecution against the respondents arises out of suicidal death of victim Sandhya in the morning of 5.6.1989. The victim Sandhya was daughter of witness Kisanrao Deshmukh (PW 7) and Shashikala (PW 3). She was married to respondent Vilas on 10th March, 1988. The respondent Sahebrao Deshmukh and his wife Leelabai Deshmukh are parents of respondent Vilas. The witness Vijay (PW 5 and Sanjay PW 6) are sons of Kisanrao Deshmukh, The victim’s elder sister Sheela was given in marriage to elder brother of Vilas. Their marriage took place some 8 to 10 years back. After marriage Sandhya came to reside in matrimonial home with her husband Vilas. Respondent Vilas has a small stationery shop at Buldhana near S.T. Bus Stand. Sandhya lived in matrimonial home for 13 months. Her sister Sheela was also residing in the same house with their parents-in-law. During the span of 13 months Sandhya had visited her parental house on two occasions only. Firstly, she had come in intercollery month and lastly in Diwali Festival of 1988 i.e. in or about October, 1988. In her last visit she complained about ill-treatment to her at the hands of respondents and also conveyed message to her parents of demand of amount in the form of dowry.
3. The witness Vijay, Sandhya’s brother, visited Sandhya’s house on 3.6.1989. He halted there on 3rd and also on the night of 4th June, 1989. He claimed that during his stay, his sister Sandhya expressed him that she wanted to come with him to their parental house at Deulgaon Raja. In the morning at about 5.30 a.m. on 5.6.1989 Subhash went to the terrace of the house where Vijay was sleeping and after awakening him, told that one yourg Baby was lying in the field. Immediately Subhash and Vijay ran towards the field and on reaching there Vijay found that the girl lying was his sister deceased Sandhya. In the mean-time police arrived there at about 8.00 a.m. and statement of Vijay was recorded. It is pertinent to note that Vijay did not complain anything against respondents when his statement was recorded. On the contrary, for Sandhya’s suicidal death he put blame on her because of her eccentric nature. Then by that time, parents of Sandhya were informed about the death of Sandhya, and therefore Kisanrao and some members of his family including his wife immediately rushed to village Yelgaon where Sandhya was residing and there they came to know that their daughter Sandhya had expired and her dead body was removed to Civil Hospital, Buldhana for post-mortem. Thereafter, they all came to Buldhana Civil Hospital and saw the dead body of Sandhya. They noticed some injuries on her body. The Medical Officer carried out autopsy on the dead body of Sandhya and prepared postmortem Note (Exh. 49). Exact cause of death could not be opined. However, probable cause was pulmonary oedena due to insecticide poisoning. That came to be confirmed after having received the report of C.A. in respect of viscera vide Exh. 36 in which the result of detection of organo-phospherous insecticide. Phosphine are positive that is why doctor Dilip Kulkarni (PW 4) who conducted autopsy stated in his evidence that the cause of death must have been due to organo-phospherous insecticide poison. The Medical Officer, when conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sandhya, noticed external injuries on her body which he noted in the post-mortem note (Exh. 39). In his evidence he has stated that injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were post mortem in nature while injury Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were ante mortem and these injuries might have been caused within 24 hours.
4. The relatives of Sandhya including her parents, after coming to Buldhana, visited Civil Hospital to see dead body of Sandhya. They also noticed injuries on her body. Then on the same day in the evening at about 7.00 p.m. Kisanrao went to Police Station where his statement was recorded. Accordingly, police registered offence under Sections 302, 304B, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Again on 6.6.1989, parents and brother of Sandhya came to Buldhana to give statement to police. Accordingly, their statements were recorded. Kisanrao gave his statement to the effect that his daughter Sandhya must have been murdered by the respondents.
5. It is matter of record that witness Shiduba Patil (PW 1), who was then Police Patil of village Yelgaon, gave report (Exh. 39) reporting accidental death of Sandhya to Police Station Officer, Police Station, Buldhana. On that report Police Station Officer registered accidental death. It was investigated by P.S.I. Mohan Jadhav (P.W.8). He visited the place of occurrence and prepared spot Panchanama, as also inquest Panchanama of the dead body and sent dead body of Sandhya for post-mortem to Civil Hospital, Buldhana. He recorded statements of relatives of Sandhya, including Kisanrao Deshmukh who complained that his daughter Sandhya was tortured for dowry demand and was forcibly given poison and has been murdered. Therefore, P.S.I. Jadhav himself lodged complaint for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code vide Exh. 54 and offence was registered against respondents After investigation it was transpired that the accused had committed offences under Sections 306, 304B and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. P.S.I. Jadhav, after completing investigation filed charge-sheet against the accused persons in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Buldhana, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Buldhana. Before the Sessions Court respondents pleaded not guilty to the charge (Exh. 25) and claimed to be tried. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all eight witnesses, including Shiduba Patil (PW 1), Panch witness Tryambak Kapse (PW 2), Dr. Kulkarni (PW 4), PWs 3, 5, 6 and 7 respectively are mother, brothers and father of Sandhya. Defence did not dispute the fact that the Sandhya died suicidal death. The witnesses Kisanrao, Shashikala, Vijay and Sanjay gave evidence about the unlawful demands made by respondents and also about ill-treatment victim Sandhya was subjected to, on account of non-fulfilment of demand. The tenor of their evidence was that Sandhya was driven to commit suicide on account of ill-treatment and harassment to her by the respondents, as their demands were not satisfied. Defence has denied the factum of demand, as also ill-treatment and cruelty to Sandhya, as alleged by the prosecution. It was suggested by the defence to the prosecution witnesses that Sandhya was eccentric and hot tempered and because of that nature, in the heat of anger she committed suicide.
6. The Trial Court, though held that Sandhya died suicidal death, it did not accept the prosecution case that there was unlawful demands by the respondents, much less respondent Vilas, the husband of Sandhya. The Trial Court found that the prosecution has failed to prove that Sandhya was subjected to cruelty. Consequently, Trial Court came to the conclusion that Sandhya’s suicidal death was not on account of harassment and cruelty caused to her by the respondents and therefore the offence with which the respondents were charged, are not brought home to, and therefore the respondents came to be acquitted. Hence, this appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal.
7. I have, with the assistance of learned Counsel for the parties, gone through the evidence on record. I have perused the record. I have also scrutinised the evidence carefully. The learned A.P.P. Mr. Lanjewar, referring to the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly that of Kisanrao, Vijay, Sanjay, Shashikala, submitted that their evidence is consistent and cogent on the point of demand of amounts by the respondent Vilas, as also displeasure and threat, expressed by respondent Vilas when Kisanrao told that demand of money cannot be fulfilled. He contended that the witnesses have consistently given evidence to show that Sandhya was subjected to physical ill-treatment. In that context, he referred to the injuries which were noted on her dead body by the Medical Officer Dr. Kulkarni and some injuries, out of these injuries, were ante mortem in nature, which according to learned A.P.P., positively goes to show that Sandhya was subjected to cruelty, immediately before she decided to put an end to her life. The learned A.P.P. submitted that the victim Sandhya had married life for 13 months only, and that there was no reasonably plausible cause for her to commit suicide. Even in the nature of things, a woman who had enjoyed 13 months married life, has no reason to put an end to her life. Therefore, what is claimed by witnesses about ill-treatment and harassment to Sandhya, stands probable and true and for that reason it has to be said that Sandhya committed suicide. He contended that the Trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and that he has given much importance to some contradictions and omissions in the evidence of witnesses and thereby landed in error acquitting the respondents. He, therefore, urged that the appeal be allowed and decision of the Trial Court be reversed and the respondents be convicted.
8. Mr. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondents, pointed out from the evidence on record about discrepancies, as also improbabilities in the claim of prosecution witnesses, mainly the closed relatives of Sandhya. He pointed out that the claim of demand of amount is not established on the evidence on record. The evidence in that regard is far from truth and probabilities in the matter. As regards ill-treatment and harassment to Sandhya, the evidence on record is contradictory. He pointed out that the witnesses have, on one hand, claimed that during the period Sandhya lived in her matrimonial home, she was happy and as such she did not complain against the respondents. The witnesses have stated about the ill-treatment on the basis of what was told to them by their daughter Sheela, who is not examined as witness by the prosecution. Therefore, in the first place, evidence of witnesses in that regard cannot be accepted being hearsay evidence. Secondly, by not examining Sheela as witnees, there is inherent infirmities in the prosecution claim as to harassment and ill treatment to Sandhya. So far as evidence of witness Vijay is concerned, the learned Counsel pointed out that though he was very much halting two days before the incident at the house of Sandhya, no complaint was made to him by Sandhya about demand and ill-treatment for non-fulfilment of the demand. The learned Counsel pointed out that this witness Vijay has audacity to deny his first statement recorded by police, wherein he has stated that he had no talk with his sister Sandhya nor she complained of any grumble, grudge by her husband. The fact remains that Sandhya herself did not make any complaint against respondents about the ill-treatment and unlawful demand by her husband. Mr. Gupta pointed out from the evidence of witness Shashikala that the demand was by their daughter Sandhya. There is no evidence to show that what was claimed by victim Sandhya about demand of amounts, was at the behest of respondent Vilas. The witness Vijay was the best witness to enlighten the Court as to what had happened immediately preceding the day when Sandhya committed suicide. Therefore, on the evidence on record nothing is brought as to what was the proximate cause for Sandhya to put an end to life. He, therefore, urged that the Trial Court has rightly rejected prosecution case and as such no interference in the judgment and order of acquittal is called for.
9. After having scrutinised the evidence by me independently, without being influenced by the findings recorded by the Trial Court, I have come to the conclusion that the evidence on record is not at all sufficient to hold beyond reasonable coubt that basically there was unlawful demand of amounts by respondent Vilas, and that Sandhya was subjected to cruelty because of non-fulfilment of demands, and that she committed suicide or she was driven to commit suicide on account of harassment and cruelty. In my opinion, the evidence of witnesses in that regard does not inspire confidence. The evidence is far from truth and probabilities in the matter, having regard to the facts and circumstances attained in the case.
10. It is to be borne in mind that Sheela, the elder sister of Sandhya, was all the while residing in the matrimonial home along with Sandhya, The witnesses Kisanrao and Shashikalabai, in their evidence before the Court, claimed that their daughter Sheela when visited their place disclosed that there was demand of amounts by respondents including respondent Vilas and on account of that Sandhya was harassed and subjected to ill-treatment by the respondents, and that the respondent Vilas has assaulted and caused physical injury to Sandhya. It is brought on record that statement of Sheela was recorded in the course of investigation. If that was so then the prosecution ought to have examined Sheela as a witness in this case and her evidence, in the background of her statement being recorded in the course of investigation, was very relevant and such disclosure by her in the Court would have been direct evidence on the point of ill-treatment to Sandhya. It remained in the mystery of moss and mire, as to why Sheela was not examined. Absence of her evidence, in my opinion, directly impairs the claim of witnesses on the issue of unlawful demand and harassment and cruelty to victim Sandhya. In addition to that, Sheela being the only witness to explain as to what happened immediately prior to Sandhya having committed suicide, the prosecution is unable to put forth on record in the evidence what was the proximate cause or what led Sandhya to commit suicide, that is much more so when it is admitted that Sheela was very much in the matrimonial home. That apart, as Sheela was living with Sandhya in the matrimonial home, her evidence, if led, could have thrown light on the conduct of respondent Vilas vis-a-vis victim Sandhya. If really there had been beating and ill-treatment to Sandhya by Vilas on account of non-fulfilment of his demands, Sheela would have disclosed so in her evidence before the Court, if examined. It is needless to say that her evidence in that regard was the best possible evidence of intrinsic value to be placed reliance on. Other effect of absence of evidence of Sheela is that the evidence of witnesses Kisanrao and Shashikala as to disclosure to them by Sheela during her visit to her parental house about ill-treatment and harassment to Sandhya, is hearsay evidence which cannot be accepted. Therefore, this lacuna in the prosecution evidence on account of not examining Sheela as witness, in my opinion, brings out inherent infirmity in the evidence of prosecution witnesses.
11. The prosecution sought to place reliance on the evidence of witness Vijay, admittedly visited the matrimonial home of Sandhya just two days prior to 5.6.1989 and, as claimed by him, he had halted for two nights there. It is no doubt true that this witness in his evidence before the Court did state about harassment and ill-treatment to his sister Sandhya. In his evidence he has stated that when Sandhya arrived to their house for Diwali she told him that her husband wanted money for his shop, and that their father is not giving amount. She told him that her husband required about Rs. 10,000, but he did not talk anything on this subject. In his evidence he also stated that some time in the month of March, 1989 when he had visited Sandhya’s house, he saw one injury mark on her lower lip and when asked her about that injury, she told that as their father did not give money, she was beaten by her husband on the say of her parents-in-law. Then in his evidence he further stated about his visit on 3rd and 4th June, 1989. He stated that on the night of 4th June, Sandhya disclosed him that she wanted to come with him to Deulgaon Raja. Then, according to him, in the morning when he saw Sandhya lying dead in the field, he confirmed that she must have been killed by the family members by conspiracy.
12. The evidence of this witness Vijay is totally shattered in cross-examination by defence. Though he made a tall claim of demand and harassment to his sister Sandhya in his evidence, admissions given by him in his cross-examination completely falsifies his claim. It is no doubt true that Vijay was halting at the house of victim for two days prior to the death of Sandhya. If at all there had been harassment and cruelty to Sandhya which would have been very proximate soon before her suicidal death, in all probabilities she would have disclosed to her brother Vijay who was very much in the house for two days. But witness Vijay has not claimed whether any disclosure was made by his sister Sandhya, during the period he was halting in her house. In addition to that, when his statement was recorded by P.S.I. Jadhav at the time when he was conducting inquiry into the accidental death of Sandhya, the witness Vijay has stated in his evidence that on 5th June, 1989, police had recorded his statement in the house of accused at about 8.00 a.m. and then on the next day on 6.6.1989 in the police station. This witness realising that whatever he claimed before the Court in respect of harassment and cruelty to his sister on account of non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 10,000 having not mentioned in his statement before police, when his statement was recorded on 5th in the morning, he stated that at the time of giving earlier statement, all the family members of accused were around him and his arms were held by them and P.S.I. also told him not to tell anything extra. The witness was cross-examined by defence in respect of omissions those have crept in his statement recorded earlier. He admitted that his statement was recorded by P.S.I. Jadhav on 5th June, 1989. In his evidence he stated about the talk, which he had with his father in the morning at the place where the dead body of Sandhya was lying. It is surprising to note that he did not tell even to his father at that time about harassment and cruelty meted out to his sister Sandhya. He admitted that P.S.I. Jadhav was asking question to him and he was giving replies to the questions at the time when his statement was recorded. He has audacity to admit that on 5.6.1989, P.S.I. Jadhav did not say to him not to speak anything more. It is true that no talk had taken place between the accused and members of his family about the treatment given to Sandhya by the accused. He admitted that no talk took place in that regard between members of his family including himself, his sister, brothers and parents. He admitted that in his both statements recorded by police he has not mentioned about the demand of Rs. 10,000 the accused. He stated that his sister Sheela and Sandhya did not demand dowry from him. He candidly admitted in his statement before the police on 5.6.1989 that he did not speak anything to police about demand of dowry. It is pertinent to note that, according to this witness, his sister Sandhya, after Diwali of 1988, met for the first time on 3.6.1989 when he visited her house. He feigned ignorance whether till Diwali Sandhya was happy in her in-laws house. It was brought to his notice portion marked “B” in his statement recorded on 5.6.1989 namely “She was happy at in-laws house and she was not having any trouble in in-laws house.” He has audacity to say that he did not make such statement to the police. But he could not assign any reason as to why it so mentioned in his statement. He further stated in his cross-examination that in between 3.6.1989 and her death, he met Sandhya once and at that time he had talk with her and he queried with her about her well-being. He admitted that she told him that she was happy. His attention was drawn to portion marked “C” in his statement that he queried about well-being of Sandhya and she answered that she was happy, but again the witness stated that he has not stated so before the police. He admitted that he has no personal knowledge about ill-treatment given to Sandhya by the accused. He admitted that he became angry because of untimely death of his sister.
13. P.S.I. Jadhav (PW 8) recorded statement of witness Vijay on 5.6.1989 and his statement was verified by Dy.S.P. Sharma. P.S.I. Jadhav stated that he had not brought any pressure on any of the witnesses while recording their statements, and that witness Vijay has voluntarily given his statement on 5.6.1989. He stated that witness Vijay did not state before him in his statement recorded on 6.6.1989 that the accused were sitting around him and had pressurised him while giving statement on 5.6.1989. In his evidence it was brought to his notice the contradictions marks ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, and ‘E’ in the statement of witness Vijay dated 5.6.1989 and he has stated that the witness has stated before him, as mentioned in the partition marks ‘A, B, C, D and E’. These contradictions in the statement of Vijay have been marked at Exhs. 55/1 to 55/5. It is, therefore, seen that witness Vijay is falsified by denying the statements which he made when his statement was recorded by P.S.I. Jadhav on 5.6.1989 vide Exhs. 55/1 to 55/5, thereby it is clinchingly established that the witness Vijay stated that Sandhya did not tell him anything about harassment in the in-laws house. She was residing at her in-laws house happily, and that she was having no harassment, as such, from her in-laws house. She told him that she was happy. He has also stated that deceased Sandhya was of very hot tempered nature. She was having no trouble, as such, at her in-laws house. There was no suspicion in her death.
14. The prosecution examined witness Tryambak Kapse (PW 2) who was resident of village Yelgaon and he was knowing the family members of accused, including Sandhya. In his statement he has stated that he used to talk with Sandhya sometimes. She told him that she was living happily. She had absolutely no trouble from the accused. Thus, the evidence of witness Vijay which is full of contradictions and omissions does not at all inspire confidence. In fact, having regard to evidence of P.S.I. Jadhav, and that of Tryambak Kapse (PW 2), it is crystal clear that witness Vijay is not witness of truth. The fact that Vijay did not disclose in the morning of 5.6.1989 at the place where the dead body of Sandhya was lying, about harassment and ill-treatment to her sister either during the period she lived in the matrimonial home or just two days prior to the date of occurrence, when Vijay was halting at her house, is falsified by witness Shiduba Patil (PW1), who stated in his evidence that he enquired with the brother of the victim on the spot about the incident. The brother had halted at Yelgaon, on earlier night. He did not complain against anybody to him. Therefore, it is crystal clear that though witness Vijay had opportunity to disclose to police as well as several persons who had gathered at the place where dead body of Sandhya was lying, did not disclose about ill-treatment, alleged to have meted out to his sister Sandhya. if really there had been ill-treatment or harassment, either physical or mental, to the victim soon before commission of suicide by her, at least during the span of two days when her brother was halting at her house, in all probabilities she would have disclosed to her brother and in turn her brother would have disclosed it, at least, to his parents and sister.
15. This takes me to consider the evidence of witness Shashikala (PW 3), who stated in her evidence before the Court that when Sandhya had come for Diwali Festival, she told her that her ornaments were taken by her husband for articles in the shop. The witness further stated that Sandhya also told her that she required money for her husband’s shop and she told her to demand that amount from her husband. She stated that her husband did not give money to Sandhya. Sandhya required about Rs. 10,000 for the goods to be purchased for her husband’s shop. This claim of witness Shashikala has been shaken in cross-examination by defence. She admitted that Sandhya did not come to her house from November till her death. It is admitted that Sandhya’s visit to her parental house, at the time of Diwali Festival in 1988, was the last visit. It is admitted that after Diwali Festival Sandhya lived in matrimonial home with accused. There is absolutely no evidence that during this period when Sandhya was living in matrimonial home, either any demand of amount was made by the respondents or Sandhya was subjected to cruelty, physically or mentally, by the respondents on account of non-payment of amount of Rs. 10,000, as demanded by Sandhya for her husband. It is admitted by witness Shashikala that her niece Shakuntala is given in marriage at Yelgaon and she was residing there since last 8 to 10 years. It is matter of record that during the course of investigation statement of Shakuntala was also recorded by the Investigating Officer. But prosecution did not examine her. In earlier part of judgment it is stated that Sandhya’s elder sister Sheela was very much residing in the matrimonial home. She had visited the parental house at times. In all probabilities Sheela was the best witness to throw light on the conduct of the respondents with Sandhya in the matrimonial home. But for the reasons best known to the prosecution, though Sheela had attended the Court at the trial, she was not prepared to give evidence. She was best witness to tell about the harassment and cruelty, if at all it was to Sandhya, at least, soon before the date of occurrence. It is true that witness Shakuntala has stated in her evidence that when Sheela visited her parental house, she told her that Sandhya’s husband did not allow her to come and Sandhya and her husband were not on good terms with each other, and that Sandhya was beaten upto tearing of lip, and that she was treated by doctor. At this juncture, it is also to be noted that witness Kisanrao, the father of deceased Sandhya, has also stated in his evidence about disclosure made by Sheela, stating that Sandhya’s husband had beaten her and caused injury to her lower lip. The Trial Court has rightly rejected the claim of witness Shashikala and Kisanrao in this regard about what has been disclosed to them by their daughter Sheela. It is certainly hearsay evidence and therefore this cannot be accepted. In this background evidence of Sheela was absolutely necessary. In the absence of that, the claim of both these witnesses in their evidence cannot be accepted.
16. The witness Shakuntala in her cross-examination admitted that she had not stated before the police that gold ornaments were not seen on the person of Sandhya, and that the ornaments were sold for articles in the shop. She claimed that she has stated before police that Sandhya asked her to demand money from her husband and the amount to be claimed was Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 10,000. The witness was also confronted with her statement recorded by police in respect of disclosure made by Sheela, regarding the injuries on her lip. In that regard she stated that P.S.I. Jadhav told her that she should not point out the injuries above and around lip because the accused would be acquitted, if those injuries were shown. In her cross-examination she stated that Sheela had come to their house even after Sandhya’s marriage but she did not disclose anything about Sandhya. She admitted in her cross-examination that she did not state before the police that Sandhya voluntarily consumed poison because of trouble from her husband.
17. P.S.I. Jadhav, when cross-examined by defence in connection with the statement of Shashikalabai, recorded by him, stated that witness Shashikala did not state before him that Sandhya told her that her husband was demanding Rs. 10,000. She did not state before him that Sheela told her that Sandhya was not allowed to come by her husband. He admitted that he recorded statement of Shakuntala who was cousin of Sandhya and Sheela. According to this witness, Shashikala did not state details of the injuries on the body of Sandhya. Therefore, considering in the background that Sheela was not examined nor Shakuntala was examined, the evidence of Shashikala does not inspire confidence, in view of contradictions and omissions brought on record in her statement through the evidence of P.S.I. Jadhav.
18. The witness Kisanrao has no doubt stated about demand of amount of Rs. 10,000 by Sandhya. He stated that Sandhya told him that her husband had demanded Rs. 10,000 from him. He stated that Sandhya told her that if the amount is not given, she would be troubled. About physical cruelty and injury to ear of Sandhya, this witness has stated on the basis of what was told to him by his daughter Sheela. His evidence is, however, totally shattered in cross-examination. He admitted that when his statement was recorded by police he did not state that Sheela told him about ill-treatment to Sandhya at her in-laws house. He admitted that his son Vijay did not disclose anything in the morning of 5th June, 1989 about ill-treatment or harassment caused to Sandhya. His statement was recorded twice by RS. Jadhav. He stated that the figure of Rs. 10,000 was not stated by the witness Kisanrao. He also stated that witness Kisanrao did not state before him that Sandhya stated him that if Rs. 10,000 would not be given, she would be troubled at her in-laws house. Therefore, evidence of witness Kisanrao is also of no assistance to the prosecution on the point of demand of amount and consequent harassment and cruelty to Sandhya for not fulfilling the demand.
19. The prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of witness Sanjay (PW 6) who no doubt stated in his evidence that he came to know that Sheela had told his family members that two months before Sandhya was beaten by her husband and her lower lip was torn. He also claimed that Sandhya had visited on Diwali of 1988 and he came to know that Sandhya had demanded Rs. 10,000 from her parents for the purpose of shop of Vilasrao. His evidence is also shattered in cross-examination. What was disclosed by Sheela in the house about physical ill-treatment to Sandhya which the witness heard and came to know cannot be accepted in the absence of evidence of witness Sheela. He was confronted by defence vis-a-vis his statement recorded, by pointing out omissions in his statement. But he denied and maintained that he stated before the police about the demand of amount and about Sandhya having suffered physical injuries. But his claim is falsified when P.S.I. Jadhav, who recorded his statement, was cross-examined. In his evidence he stated that it is true that Sandhya did not state figure of Rs. 10,000 as demand from Vilas before him. The evidence of all these witnesses suffered from inherent infirmities in respect of complaint either to police or any relative when they first came to know that Sandhya was subjected to cruelty by respondents on account of non-fulfilment of demand. What is striking is the fact that none of them has complained to police in the morning of 5th June, 1989 when they came to know that Sandhya died suicidal death. So, this conduct showing inaction on the part of these witnesses, affects their credibility.
20. Learned Counsel for the respondents has rightly submitted that even accepting the fact that Sandhya had demanded amount of Rs. 10,000 from her father when she visited her parental house at the time of Diwali Festival in the year 1988, no blame could be attributed to the respondents for suicidal death of Sandhya, committed six months thereafter. There is much substance in this contention of learned Counsel which requires consideration. In my opinion, even accepting what was claimed by victim Sandhya, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that it was at the behest of her husband. In the evidence it is very clear that the amount was demanded by Sandhya. It is true that the amount was demanded for the shop of her husband. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was unlawful demand so as to brand it as “demand of dowry”. That apart, there is nothing on record to show that the demand was at the behest of the respondent husband of Sandhya. Therefore, the evidence of these witnesses is not sufficient to establish that the respondents, more particularly husband of deceased Sandhya, had made unlawful demand of amount and deceased Sandhya was subjected to harassment and cruelty in relation to that.
21. This takes me to the injuries which were noticed by the witnesses on the dead body of Sandhya. The doctor Kulkarni has, no doubt, noted these injuries on the dead body of Sandhya and the same were mentioned in the P-M note (Exh. 49). Dr. Kulkarni (PW 4) stated in his evidence that injury Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were ante mortem while injury Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were post mortem, and that these injuries might have been caused within 24 hours. The prosecution witnesses namely parents of victim, her brother have made much of these injuries on the body of victim to support their claim that victim was Subjected to physical cruelty. It was contended by the learned A.P.P. that Sandhya was in the matrimonial home on the night of 4.6.1989 and she found dead in early morning of 5.6.1989, which shows that lastly she was in the company of accused and then she was found injured for which no plausible explanation is offered by the accused. It is submitted that there was no chance of any burning injury except causing of those at the hands of accused. The Trial Court has rightly dealt with this submission. In order to hold that the respondents or respondent No. 1 were responsible for these injuries on the person of Sandhya, indicating that soon before her death she was subjected to physical cruelty, it must be proved that some injuries were of burning and all were ante mortem. Medical Officer Dr. Kulkarni has stated that injury Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were only ante mortem. It is significant to note that injury Nos. 1, 5 and 6 were merely abrasions. Medical Officer has stated that those injuries were red in colour and must have been caused within 24 hours. In cross-examination he admitted that after taking poison the person gets convulsion. Naturally there is possibility that patient made struggle for survival and fell and rolled on earth before death. The Medical Officer also admitted that injury Nos. 1, 5 and 6 are possible if that portion of body comes in contact with rough surface. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of Dr. Kulkarni. Therefore, possibility of those injuries which were ante mortem in nature, being caused in the manner, as suggested to Medical Officer and accepted by him, cannot be ruled out. In the absence of any direct evidence of physical cruelty, it cannot be concluded that the accused caused those injuries. Therefore, finding of injuries on the dead body of Sandhya is not conclusive to establish that she suffered injuries as a result of physical violence, suspected to have been to her by her husband. If that is so then mere finding of external injuries on her person though of ante mortem nature, cannot be result of physical assault on her, soon before her death.
22. In the case at hand factum of suicidal death of victim Sandhya is not disputed. The learned A.P.P. submitted that when it is established that the victim Sandhya was subjected to cruelty, it would be sufficient to bring home the guilt of committing cruelty, as defined in Explanation (A) of Section 498A of Indian Penal Code. In this context, legal position is explained by our High Court in 1993 Cr.LJ 3019, Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra. It is observed that–
“if cruelty is by itself established and the fact of suicide is also established; it would not be sufficient to bring home the guilt of committing cruelty as defined in Explanation (a). A reasonable nexus has to be established between the cruelty and the suicide in order to make good the offence of cruelty. Alternatively, the cruelty established has to be of such a gravity as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide. If suicide is established it has further to be established that it was occasioned on account of cruelty which was of sufficient gravity so as to lead a reasonable person placed in similar circumstances to commit suicide”.
In the case at hand it is not established that the injuries suffered by the victim were the result of physical force or assault on her. In that regard there is no evidence either oral or documentary. Therefore, mere factum of injuries in respect of which the possibility of the same being caused, as a result of fall, as admitted by the Medical Officer, is not sufficient to hold that the respondents are guilty of offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
23. Thus, the scrutiny of evidence of prosecution witnesses by me leads me to come to the conclusion that the factum of cruelty as well as demand of amount, as alleged by the prosecution is not established. The Trial Court is found to be right in coming to the conclusion that the offences with which the respondents were charged, have not been established on the evidence on record. As such, the view taken by the Trial Court in acquitting respondents seems to be reasonable and probable view. In my considered opinion, no other view is possible. If that is so then, as rightly submitted by Mr. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondent, by placing reliance on the decision of our High Court in 2004 All MR (Cri) 1220, State of Maharashtra v. Tukaram Nivrati Mane and Anr., that–
“The interference by the High Court when findings and reasons given by the Trial Court are reasonable, is not warranted.”
This case was arising out of appeal against acquittal of the accused persons who were acquitted of offences under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of I.P. Code. That matter was decided by me and the legal position as to power of High Court for interference in appeal against acquittal has been stated referring to the decision of Apex Court in III (2003) CCR 198 (SC) : 2003 All MR (Cri) 2080 (S.C.), State of Rajasthan v. Rajaram. The Apex Court has observed that–
“Generally, order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in a case, one pointing to guilt of accused and other to innocence, the view which is beneficial to the accused is to be adopted. The paramount consideration of the Court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent.
In case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast upon the Appellate Court to reappreciate the evidence in a case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not. The principle to be followed by the Appellate Court, considering the appeal against the judgment of acquittal is to interfere only when there are compelling and substantial reasons for doing so. If the impugned judgment is clearly unreasonable, it is a compelling reason for interference.”
24. In this context, we may refer to the recent decision of Apex Court in IV (2003) CCR 249 : 2004 Cr.LJ 640, Ramanand Yadav v. Prabhu Nath Jha and Ors., the Apex Court held that–
“There is no embargo on appellate Court reviewing the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is based. Interference by the Appellate Court is permissible only when there are convincing and substantial reasons for doing so.”
25. In the decision reported in 2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1441, State of Maharashtra v. Haribhau Krishnaji Deshmukh and Ors., the Division Bench of our High Court held that–
“Power of interfering with the order of acquittal is equal to that of interfering with the order of conviction and it can be one for substantial and compelling reasons or it may be said that sufficient and cogent reasons or for strong reasons. Unless appeal has strong reasons to interfere with the order of acquittal it need not be done. Where two views are possible on appreciation of evidence and the Court ordering acquittal, has taken one view, it is reasonably possible and the appellate Court enquiring into the correctness of the acquittal on reappreciation takes another view, but according to the criminal jurisprudence, benefit must go to the accused and the High Court should refrain from interfering with such acquittal.”
26. In the case before hand it is found that the view taken by the Trial Court is probable and reasonable. Not only that but in my considered opinion no other view is possible. If that is so then the present case stands on a better footing and as such interference in the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court is not at all warranted. The appeal has to be dismissed. Hence, the order.
ORDER
Appeal is dismissed.