The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove suicidal death and the admissibility of evidence under section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act.

1. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2000 faced trial for offence punishable under sections 306 and 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’). They have been acquitted of offence punishable under section 306 read with section 34 of IPC and have been convicted of offence punishable under section 498A read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-.

The State is challenging the acquittal of the accused for offence punishable under section 306 of IPC and accused are challenging the conviction under section 498A read with section 34 of IPC. Criminal Appeal 17 of 2000 and Criminal Appeal 74 of 2000, assailing the judgment dated 20.12.1999, in Session Trial 65 of 1997 delivered by Additional Sessions Judge, Washim, have been heard together and are decided by this common judgment.

2. Heard Shri. S.A. Bramhe, learned counsel for appellants in Criminal Appeal 17 of 2000 and Shri. H.R. Dhumale, learned Additional Public Prosecutor in Criminal Appeal 74 of 2000 for the State.

3. Saraswati, late wife of appellant 1, Purushottam (appellants shall be referred to as ‘accused’ hereinafter) expired on 22.5.1997 at village Tiwali. The prosecution contends that Sarswati committed suicide by consuming poison. Natthu Jadhav, the father of Sarswati lodged First Information Report (for short ‘FIR’) (Exh.23), on 23.5.1997, pursuant to which offence punishable under section 498A and 306 read with section 34 of IPC was registered at Shirpur Police Station.

4. The gist of the prosecution case is that Sarswati was harassed by the accused to coerce her to fulfil unlawful demand of colour TV, cooler and Rs.10,000/-. The FIR states that whenever Sarswati used to visit the maternal house, she used to disclose the harassment to which she was subjected, to the informant and other family members.

The investigation led to filing chargesheet before the learned Magistrate who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge (Exh.14). The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined six witnesses including the father, mother, uncle and sister of the deceased Sarswati. The defence of the accused is total denial.

5. The learned Sessions Judge has held that the prosecution has not proved that Sarswati committed suicide. The learned APP Shri. H.R.Dhumale, contends that the finding of the learned Sessions Judge is manifestly erroneous and is contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhupendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014) 2 SCC 106. The learned APP contends that the reasoning of the learned Sessions Judge, that in view of the report of the Chemical Analyzer that on examination of viscera, no general and specific chemical was detected, suicidal death is not proved conclusively, is a reasoning which is clearly flawed. The learned APP would contend that there is ample evidence on record including the FIR, the spot panchanama and the Post Mortem Report which proves that Sarswati consumed poison. He would urge, that the learned Sessions Judge fell in serious error on relying only on the negative report of the Chemical Analyzer to hold that suicidal death is not established. Per contra, Shri. S.A. Bramhe, learned counsel for the accused would urge, that the finding recorded by the learned Session Judge does not prove that Sarswati committed suicide, is a possible and plausible view and certainly not perverse. The learned counsel for the accused does not dispute the proposition that it is not necessary for the prosecution to wait for the report of the Chemical Analyzer even if such report is sought. However, the learned counsel would urge, that once the prosecution receives the report of the Chemical Analyzer and the Chemical Analyzer’s report is relied upon by the prosecution by filing the same in the trial and inviting the accused to admit the contents thereof, the prose