The judgment emphasizes the importance of carefully scrutinizing evidence in cases of unnatural deaths and the need for plausible explanations from the accused.

1. Renuka – the second wife of appellant no.1 Dattatraya – died an unnatural death, by consuming an insecticide. Appellant no.2 – Sushila – is the first wife of appellant no.1 Dattatraya. Renuka was the real sister of appellant no.2 Sushila. After Renuka's death, her father – Nagappa – lodged a report with the police alleging that Renuka was being treated with cruelty by the appellants, and that, Renuka had committed suicide due to the torture caused to her by the appellants. On this report, which was treated as First Information Report (FIR), a case in respect of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B of Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 34 thereof, was registered. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellants, alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 304B of IPC read with Section 34 thereof. It, however, appears that, the charge of an offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC also came to be framed against the appellants. After holding a trial, the Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, held the appellants guilty of offence punishable under Sections 498A IPC read with Section 34 IPC and offence punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 IPC. He sentenced them to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/each, with respect to the first mentioned offence, and Rigorous Imprisonment for 4 years each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/each, with respect to the second mentioned offence. The Additional Sessions Judge found the appellants not guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304B IPC read with Section 34 thereof, and acquitted them of the said offence.

The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and order convicting the sentencing them, and have, therefore, approached this court by filing the present appeal, challenging the same.

2. I have heard Mr. M.R. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the appellants. I have heard Mrs. M.R. Tidke, the learned APP for the State. I have gone through the entire evidence adduced during the trial. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment.

3. The facts are, rather unusual, in as much as, it appears that though appellant no.1 was married to appellant no.2, the parents of appellant no.2 gave appellant no.2's younger sister – Renuka – also, in marriage to appellant no.1. When Renuka died, an allegation was leveled against not only the appellant no.1, but also the appellant no.2, that Renuka was being treated with cruelty, and was being harassed for demand of dowry; and that, Renuka had committed suicide because of the ill-treatment and harassment caused to her by both the appellants.

4. The defence of the appellants was to the effect that, Renuka was never ill-treated or harassed by any of them. According to the appellants, Renuka was suffering from convulsive disorder, and that, she was treated medically, but had not shown any improvement. Thus, it is suggested that, due to mental disorder and ailment, Renuka might have committed suicide, and that the appellants were not responsible for the same.

5. The prosecution examined eleven witnesses during the trial. The first witness – Pirasi Vanjare – is the one, who had, after having seen the dead body of Renuka, reported the matter to the Police Patil, and he, then, along with the Police Patil, had gone to the Police station. A report (Exhibit 19) was lodged by him about the death of Renuka and investigation under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Code hereinafter) was undertaken on that basis.

6. In his cross-examination, it was revealed that there was about 10 to 15 years age gap between appellant no.2 and Renuka. This witness also admitted in the cross-examination that Renuka was suffering from convulsive disorder, and that, she was getting such attacks frequently. Renuka had delivered a child and the delivery had taken place in the house of the appellants itself, and this has also been revealed in the c