The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the accused's intention and facilitation or abetment of the alleged offence, as well as the consideration of amicable settlements and mutual consent divorces in reaching a decision.

Sadhana S. Jadhav, J.

Since none appeared for appellants, this Court had requested Advocate Mr. Ganesh Bhujbal to appear on behalf of appellants and espouse the cause of the appellants. He has graciously accepted to do so and has put in best of efforts to espouse the cause of the appellants.

2. Appellants herein are convicted for offence punishable under sections 498 (A), 307 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. They are also convicted for offence punishable under section 307 r/w section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month in Sessions Case No. 154 of 1995 by Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik vide Judgment and Order dated 04/07/1996. Hence, this appeal.

3. Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows.

4. Accused Rajendra was married to Sunita. On 28/05/1993. That after a few months of marriage, Sunita had complained about harassment and ill treatment meted out to her by her husband, mother-in-law and brother-in-law. They were demanding a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for securing an employment for Rajendra. She was driven out of the house on several occasions. There was a persistent demand by all the members of the matrimonial family. On 14/05/1995, accused Rajendra had been to the house of the complainant and informed that Sunita is admitted in the hospital at Niphad. Family members rushed to the hospital. Members of the family of Sunita had realised that she had consumed poison. Sunita was discharged from the hospital on the same day against medical advise. A report was given to the police station. Police had drawn panchanama of scene of offence, inquest panchanama. Statement of Sunita was recorded by Special Judicial Magistrate and on the basis of the said statement crime was registered against the accused persons. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed under section 498 (A), 307 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code.

5. Learned APP has submitted that Organo Phosphorous Compound was easily available to Sunita.

6. Sunita has been examined as P.W. 3. She had not even disclosed to the Special Judicial Magistrate that she was taken to the hospital by her husband and neighbours. There are inherent omissions and contradictions in the substantive evidence of P.W. 3. According to her, in the morning, her mother-in-law had called her inside the house and thereafter she was forcibly administered the poison. P.W. 3 has admitted in the cross-examination that the house of the accused has only two rooms. In her statement before Special Judicial Magistrate, she had stated that she was forcibly administered poison by her husband and brother-in-law. Thereafter, her mother-in-law had poured water on her. She was taken to the hospital where her statement was recorded under section 32 of Indian Evidence Act but since the victim has survived, the said statement happens to be res gestae witness. In the said statement she has levelled allegations against her mother-in-law that her mother-in-law did not permit her to talk to her husband. She was not given any space. It appears that soon after she had consumed insecticide, she was taken to the hospital by her husband and relatives. She has survived the same. Prosecution has failed to bring any evidence on record which would demonstrate that appellants had in any way facilitated the commission of suicide.

7. P.W. 7 Chandrabhan Kshirsagar has deposed before the court that Sunita had disclosed that there was a demand of Rs. 25,000/- and upon failure to pay the same, she was being harassed and ill-treated by her husband and in-laws. Accused are agriculturists and the presence of tin of insecticide cannot be objected. It appears to be the case of suicidal hanging. Prosecution has failed to establish