V.K. Barde, J.
1. The accused who is convicted and sentenced for offence Under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1987 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, on 3.12.1990, has filed this appeal against the said order of conviction and sentence. The prosecution case is as follows :
On 17.11.1986, Narayan Magar lodged a report at Police Station, Goregaon, that his sister Sushila died on that date. Her marriage had taken place with Vishwanath Shirsat, the present accused, about 7 years back and he had doubt about the cause of death. He also reported that Sushila was being treated with cruelty. There was demand of money always and her husband was beating her. On the basis of this report, A.D. No. 19/1986 was registered and the police started the inquiry.
2. During the course of inquiry, statement of Gangaram Magar, father of Sushila, was recorded and he gave details regarding how and when marriage took place, how there was the demand of money and other articles from the accused Vishwanath and his parents. That statement was treated as an F.I.R., crime was registered and then further investigation was carried out. Dead body of Sushila was sent for post mortem examination. The doctor reported that the cause of death was consumption of poison. Statements of witnesses were recorded and then charge-sheet was submitted against Vishwanath, his father Namdeo and his mother Shantabai for offences punishable Under Sections 306 and 498-A, both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The learned J.M.F.C. committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Hingoli. The learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for offences punishable Under Section 306 read with Section 34; and Section 498-A read with Section 34, of the Indian Penal Code. All the three accused pleaded not guilty. The defence of the accused is that the case is false.
4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge on recording depositions of the witnesses and on recording the statements of the accused Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure came to the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case against accused Vishwanath for offence Under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code; and he sentenced Vishwanath to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for six months for offence Under Section 306; and to suffer R.I. for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to suffer further R.I. for one month for offence Under Section 498-A. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted Namdeo and Shantabai of both the offences.
5. The learned Counsel for the appellant has strongly contended that there is absolutely no evidence to hold that there was any demand of money or other articles from the parents of Sushila and that there was ill-treatment to Sushila for non-payment of amount, etc. He also argued that the marriage had taken place more than 7 years prior to the death of Sushila and, therefore, there cannot be any presumption Under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. In such circumstances, the prosecution has failed to establish its case strictly by producing oil record cogent and reliable evidence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has relied upon the letters written by the accused to Sushila. However, in those letters, there is no specific demand and there is nothing to show that Sushila was being ill-treated for not meeting any demand made in the said letters. The accused was in custody in connection with an offence of riot and from jail he had written letters to Sushila and to brother of Sushila. These letters are written in the year 1985. The prosecution has produced on record a letter dated 20.6.1983 by which the accused had demanded certain foodgrains, seeds and fertilizers, but there is nothing on record to indicate that as all his demands were not fulfilled, Sushila was being ill-treated by the accused. The learned Counsel for the accused has further argued that under no circumstance, this letter dated 20.6.1983 can be linked with the alleged suicide of Sushila on 17.11.1986. He has, therefore, prayed that the accused be acquitted.
6. Dr. Kulkarni, who performed the post-mortem examination, has stated in his evidence at Exhibit 13 that the viscera was preserved and the same was sent to C.A. The C.A. reported that there was poison in the viscera known as monocrotophos, an insecticide.
7. The learned A.P.P. has argued that this evidence of the medical officer is sufficient to hold that Sushila committed suicide. The insecticide is having obnoxious smell and nobody could have consumed it by accident. It was consumed in sufficient quantity to cause her death and this circumstance fully proved that Sushila had committed suicide.
8. At the time of death, Sushila was pregnant of four months. That is noticed from the post-mortem report, Exhibit 15. However, that circumstance, by itself, does not indicate that the consumption of poison might be accidental. So, considering the evidence on record, I hold that Sushila had committed suicide by consuming insecticide.
9. To prove that Sushila was being ill-treated the prosecution has examined her brother Narayan, her father Gangaram, her mother Panchfulabai and neighbour of her father, Sampat. The prosecution is also relying upon the letters written by the accused to Sushila and Narayan.
10. No doubt, Narayan, in his deposition at Exhibit 27, has stated that the accused was making demands of money from her parents and, therefore, Sushila was ill-treated and Sushila was telling him about the ill-treatment being given to her. It has to be noted that the marriage took place in the year 1979. At the time of death, Sushila had two children, one aged about 4 years and another of two years of age; and she was again pregnant. It also appears that Sushila was all the while cohabiting with her husband since the time of her marriage till he had gone to jail in connection with a riot case. If Sushila was being ill-treated by her husband and his parents, then definitely, there would have been some attempt from her father and brother to see that the ill-treatment was stopped, but the evidence of these witnesses indicates that no such attempts were made by any of them.
11. Only vague statements are made by Narayan, his father and his mother in their respective depositions that amount was being demanded and ill-treatment was being given. There is nothing on record to indicate that the amount was being demanded and as the demand was not fulfilled, Sushila was ill-treated. Gangaram in his deposition at Exhibit 33 has stated that the father of accused Vishwanath had demanded amount of Rs. 4,000/- for celebration of marriage of his daughter. He could pay only Rs. 3,000/- and then the father of Vishwanath assured that the amount will be refunded. This happened about two to three years after the marriage of Sushila. It appears that in normal course, help was sought from the relatives and the relative obliged by paying Rs. 3,000/-. There is nothing in the evidence of Gangaram or Panchfulabai, mother of Sushila, that as less amount was paid, Sushila was being ill-treated. It also has to be noted that about 3 years after the marriage, Vishwanath and Sushila started to reside separately from the parents of Vishwanath. In such circumstances, parents of Vishwanath had no occasion to ill-treat Sushila. Vague statements are made by the witnesses in this respect.
12. The evidence on record indicates that Vishwanath and his parents were visiting the house of the father of Sushila occasionally and father and brother of Sushila were also visiting the house of accused occasionally. They were thus on cordial terms during all this period. If there had been ill-treatment to Sushila and if there had been complaints to that effect from Sushila, then there would not have been cordial relations between the parents and brother of Sushila and the accused and his parents. At least, some attempt would have been made by parents and brother of Sushila to advise the accused not to ill-treat Sushila.
13. The other incident of demand is with respect to a chit written by the accused to Narayan, the brother of Sushila, wherein he had asked for foodgrains, seeds and fertilizers. The chit is at Exhibit 31. It is dated 20.6.1983. Gangaram, father of Sushila, has stated that he then gave two bags of cotton seed, three bags of hybrid jower and 14 bags of fertilizers, but the entire demand was not satisfied. Here again, none of the prosecution witnesses state that as the entire demand was not satisfied, Sushila was being ill-treated. On the contrary, it appears that there was demand and to certain extent, it was satisfied. It also appears that it happened in regular course as one relative asking for aid from the other relative, because in the year 1983, when this demand was made, the father and brother of Sushila did not raise any dispute. There is also nothing that in consequence of non-fulfilment of the demand, the accused himself raised a quarrel with Narayan or Gangaram. This demand was in the year 1983. Thereafter, there was the incident of rioting. The accused was arrested and was in jail for considerable period and so, this chit cannot be linked with the suicide committed by Sushila.
14. The letter, Exhibit 28, is dated 8.6.1985. It is written by the accused to Sushila when she was staying with her parents. But in this letter, no demand is made either from Sushila or from her parents. Some grudge is there because the ceremony of first time removing of hair of son of the accused was performed on the lap of some other person, than on the lap of brother of Sushila. Otherwise, there is nothing in the letter and it cannot be said that this letter indicates that the accused was making any demands. If there was no demand, there was no question of ill-treatment of Sushila, especially when the accused was in jail and Sushila was at her parents’ house.
15. The letter, Exhibit 29, dated 9.5.1985, is also with respect to the ceremony of removing hair for the first time of the second son of the accused. There is also no demand in this letter.
16. Exhibit 30 is the letter dated 28.2.1985. This is also written by the accused from jail to Narayan, brother of Sushila. Many matters are mentioned with respect to their relationship and of the circumstance that Narayan had not given some positive help to the accused to get him released on bail. In the last portion of the letter, amount of Rs. 150/- is demanded and it is also requested that the tiffin may be arranged for him in the jail from some hotel.
17. There is nothing in the deposition of Narayan or Gangaram that amount of Rs. 150/- was not paid as per this demand, or the tiffin was not arranged from the hotel. These witnesses are absolutely silent on this point. Here again, it appears that some help is sought from the near relatives when the accused was in jail in connection with some other crime. Partly amount of Rs. 150/- was demanded, that too by instalments of Rs. 50/- each. The evidence of the witnesses does not indicate that. Sushila was ill-treated for not paying the amount as demanded in Exhibit 30 letter dated 28.2.1985. Under no circumstances, this demand can be tagged with the alleged ill-treatment of Sushila.
18. So, there are only vague statements in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses that there was demand and there was ill-treatment. Exactly what was demanded and how the ill-treatment was being given is not stated by any of the witnesses. If Sushila had complained about beating, it is not stated as to what type of beating was there and what steps were taken by Narayan and Gangaram to stop the beating of Sushila. It also appears that all those incidents pertained to the period prior to 1985 and death of Sushila had taken place on 17.11.1986. So, there is nothing to connect the alleged ill-treatment with the death of Sushila.
19. The prosecution has examined Rangrao, P.W. 6, at Exhibit 38. He has stated that he was employed as farm hand by father of Sushila and he was sent to the house of the accused to bring son of the accused to the house of father of Sushila and at that time, accused refused to send his son with him. The letter written in this respect by the accused to Gangaram is at Exhibit 34. However, Gangaram has nowhere identified the handwriting of the accused and the letter is not properly proved. It appears that it was dated 7.9.1984. In this letter also, there is no question of deriving any conclusion that Sushila was being ill-treated. The accused has only expressed his anger because the servant was sent to take Vijay from his house to the house of the parents of Sushila instead of coming personally for this purpose. In the heat of anger, the letter is written that too in the year 1984. Thereafter, Sushila had gone for cohabitation with the accused and it, therefore, does not appear that this evidence any way suggests that the accused was ill-treating Sushila.
20. The prosecution has not produced on record the evidence as to when the accused was released from jail. It has only brought on record that on 15.11.1986, Sushila went to the house of the accused along with him from her father’s house and then on 17.11.1986, she committed suicide. But, at that time, she was pregnant of four months. That means, prior to 15.11.1986, she had cohabited with the accused. So, she must have gone to the house of the accused more than four months prior to 15.11.1986. She must have cohabited with the accused for some period and then she might have returned to the house of her father. As to why she returned to the house of her father is not brought on record. The accused went to take her back to his house and she accordingly went with him. If there had been any ill-treatment, then Sushila would have refused to go back with him or her father and brother would have refused to send her back with the accused. There is no evidence indicating that the accused was ill-treating Sushila after his release on bail. On the contrary, Sushila became pregnant and it appears that they were living cordially.
21. Thus, the prosecution evidence is not at all sufficient to hold that there was demand from the accused of money and as the same was not fulfilled, there was ill-treatment to Sushila. The vague statements of the witnesses are not at all sufficient. It also has to be noted that after considering all this evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3. He found that evidence not at all sufficient as against accused Nos. 2 and 3. Then, how that evidence could be sufficient for holding accused No. 1 guilty. Hence, I hold that the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused.
22. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The order of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Case No. 94 of 1987 against the present appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hingoli, is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable Under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. His bail bond shall stand cancelled. Fine, if paid, be refunded to him.
