The central legal point established in the judgment is the high threshold of cruelty required for conviction under Section 498A of the IPC, emphasizing the need to prove willful conduct likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury.

1. The appellant and five others were prosecuted on the allegation of having committed offences punishable under Section 306 of the IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC and 498A of the IPC r/w section 34 of the IPC. After holding a trial, the Addl. Sessions, Sangli acquitted all the other accused. He acquitted even the appellant so far as the charge of an offence punishable under Section 306 IPC r/w Section 34 IPC was concerned. He, however, convicted the appellant of an offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and sentenced him to suffer RI for 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/. Being aggrieved by his conviction and the sentence imposed upon him, the appellant has approached this Court by the present Appeal.

2. The State has not challenged the order of acquittal of the appellant in respect of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC r/w section 34 thereof.

3. I have heard Mr.Ranjit Bhonsale, learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mrs.M.R.Tidke, learned APP for the State. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the entire record of the case. I have carefully gone through the evidence and the impugned judgment.

4. The appellant was the husband of Nayana, the deceased. The marriage between the appellant and Nayana had taken place in the year 1992. On 28/10/1998, Nayana died an unnatural death due to drowning in a well. Two days thereafter, Nayana's mother Vimal (PW 1) lodged a report with the police alleging that Nayana was being treated with cruelty by the appellant and his relatives, and that because of the cruel treatment meted out to her, Nayana had committed suicide; and that the appellant and other accused had thus abetted commission of suicide by Nayana.

5. In the course of investigation, the appellant and other accused were arrested. The trial, as aforesaid, resulted in the acquittal of all the accused, including the appellant with respect to the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC, and the acquittal of all other accused, except the appellant, with respect to the offence punishable under Section 498 of the IPC r/w Section 34 of the IPC also.

6. Upon going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution which consists only of the relatives of deceased Nayana, it is clear that the alleged cruel treatment seems to be (i) by way of beating Nayana, (ii) demanding an amount of Rs.10,000/from her, and (iii) keeping of a mistress by the appellant in Sangli.

7. None of the witnesses have given any details of any incidents of cruelty. The witnesses have merely said that they had seen Nayana weeping on some occasion, and of Nayana having told them that the appellant was demanding an amount of Rs.10,000/from her. The witnesses have also said about Nayana having told them that the appellant had kept a mistress in Sangli.

8. In the cross-examination of Vimal (PW 1), she, among other things, admitted that she had requested the appellant to secure admission for her another daughter – Ujwala – for the D.Ed course, and told him that the college authorities were demanding donation. She also said that the appellant had told her that he was not in a position to pay that much donation. Though the appellant admittedly did not pay any donation for the admission of Ujwala in D.Ed College, the fact remains that the appellant was requested by Vimal to secure admission for her another daughter by paying donation to the college authorities. When such is the case, it is quite unlikely – if not altogether impossible – that the appellant would be making any unlawful demand of Rs.10,000/- from Nayana, or that he would insist that Nayana should procure that amount from her mother, who is a widow, and give it to him.

9. Two letters written by Nayana were tendered in evidence. These letters were supposed to support the theory of cruel treatment given to Nayana. However, a perusal of the letters shows that the same do not support the allegations of cruelty, in