The judgment established the importance of proving beyond reasonable doubt the elements of the alleged offences, particularly in cases involving dowry harassment and abetment of suicide.

A.V. Nirgude, J.

This appeal challenges judgment and order dated 22.08.2002 passed by the learned Second Additional Adhoc Sessions Judge, Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No. 46 of 2000 in which there were five accused out of which accused NO.1-Sambhaji is convicted for offence punishable under section 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Rest of the accused were acquitted. Accused No.1-Sambhaji has filed this appeal. The parties would be referred to by their designation in the lower Court.

2. The prosecution alleged that all the accused demanded Rs. 5000/- from Kalpana – newly wedded bride of accused No.1 and harassed her over such demand. On 01.12.1999 Kalpana's dead body was found in a well, which was situated in agricultural land of accused No.1. The prosecution asserted that Kalpana committed suicide and her suicide was abetted by the accused.

3. The prosecution depended on in all eight witnesses. Out of which P.W.1-Rambhau, P.W.2-Govind and P.W.3-Madhukar are father and brothers of victim Kalpana. They tried to prove that Kalpana was subjected to harassment over demand of dowry.

4. P.W.1-Rambhau stated that on 29.04.1999 Kalpana was married to accused No.1. At that time of wedding, he paid Rs. 22,000/- to the accused as dowry. After the marriage Kalpana and her husband accused No.1 started to reside separately from the joint family. After 2 to 4 months from the date of marriage, accused started demanding Rs. 5000/- from Kalpana suggesting her that she should demand this amount to her father. Kalpana came to his house and told about this demand. He told her that after harvesting cotton, he would arrange some amount. Kalpana after staying for 2-4 days with him went back to her husband's house. Her brother P.W.2-Govind and her cousin P.W.3-Madhukar went with her up to her matrimonial house. P.W.2-Govind and P.W.3-Madhukar came back and told him that they had occasion to see accused No.1, when they reached Kalpana at her matrimonial house. Accused No.1 asked them whether they brought Rs. 5000/-, which he had demanded earlier. P.W.2-Govind pleaded with him that they had no money at that time but they would arrange the same after cotton harvesting. Soon thereafter he learnt that Kalpana fell in the well and drown to death. Hearing this noise, he went to Police Station and lodged complaint with police station.

5. P.W.2-Govind and P.W.3-Madhukar reiterated what P.W.1-Rambhau stated in his deposition. They reiterated that they had occasion to meet accused No.1, who demanded Rs. 2000/- to them etc.

6. P.W.4 is one Digambar. He said that after marriage, Kalpana used to visit his house and had informed him that her in-laws and her husband were harassing her for demand of Rs. 5000/-.

7. P.W.5 Padmakar is police patil of the village. He stated that he had submitted report to Gangapur Police Station about Kalpana's death.

8. P.W.6-Pandharinath is panch of scene of occurrence panchanama. Said panchanama is at Exh.20 and would throw light on the situation of the well. The contents of said panchanama are important and relevant. It says that on 01.12.1999 at about 9 p.m., there arose alarm of people near the well in question. The people found Kalpana's footwear (sleepers) floating on the water of well. They suspected that Kalpana had drowned in the well. Soon thereafter villagers sent anchor to the bottom of the well and succeeded in bringing dead body of Kalpana at the upper level of water. Soon, thereafter, a report was sent. The location is further described as under :-

The well was not developed with parapet wall. It was on the ground level. The debris removed at the time of digging of well was spread around bank of the well. On the Northern side, there was a small foot-path coming towards the well. On Eastern side of the well, there was a hut belonging to Machindra-accused No.2 i.e. brother of accused No.1. In one corner, there was a berry tree. The post-mortem report clearly indicated that this was a case of death by drowning. Mud wa