1. Exception is taken to the judgment and order dated 24.10.2002 delivered by the 3rd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur in Sessions Trial 25/2002, by and under which, the accused is convicted of offence punishable under section 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the period of two years and to payment of fine of Rs.1000/- and is further convicted of offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for four years and payment of fine of Rs.1500/-.

2. Heard Ms. Dharini Muley, the learned counsel for the accused and Shri N.B. Jawade, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent/State.

3. The case of the prosecution as is unfolded during the trial is that the appellant (hereinafter referred to as “the accused”) and the deceased Leelabai entered into wedlock in 1997. Initially, Leelabai was treated well. However, after a year accused started ill-treating Leelabai. The accused was demanding Rs.5000/- for availing electric connection. He was also physically ill-treating Leelabai under the influence of liquor. Leelabai was pregnant, her mother Sugandhabai wished to take Leelabai her home to celebrate the pregnancy, the accused however, did not oblige. Leelabai committed suicide by consuming poison on 15.07.2001. She expired at 10:30 p.m. while under going treatment at Medical College & Hospital, Nagpur. An accidental death inquiry was registered under section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case of the prosecution is that Sugandhabai the mother of the deceased and other relatives noticed injuries on the face of the deceased and were not satisfied by the explanation of the accused that the injuries were caused due to a fall. Sugandhabai lodged a report on 17.07.2001, the gist of which was that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment in connection with monetary demand of Rs.5000/and that she was beaten by the accused under the influence of liquor. On the basis of the said report, offence was registered against the accused under section 498A and 306 of I.P.C.

4. Investigations ensued, supplementary statement of Sugandhabai was recorded, the statements of other relatives including the brother of the deceased, neighbours were recorded and upon completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court 9, Nagpur who committed the case to the Sessions Court. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge at Exh.3, the accused pleased not guilty and claimed to b tried. The defence of the accused as is discernible from the statement recorded under section 313 of the Cr.P.C. is of false implication. A specific defence is taken that since Leelabai was not in a position to conceive, she was depressed.

5. The learned counsel for the accused Ms. Dharini Muley submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the offence under section 306 and 498A of I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt. She would further submit, that the learned Sessions Judge fell in serious error in invoking the presumption under section 113A of the Evidence Act. She would submit that since the prosecution failed to establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty, the statutory presumption under section 113A was not available to the prosecution.

6. Per contra, Shri Jawade, the learned A.P.P. submits that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The statutory presumption under section 113A is activated, and in the absence of a rebuttal, the accused is rightly convicted of offence punishable under section 306 and 398A of I.P.C.

7. The mother of the deceased Sugandhabai is examined as P.W.1. She has deposed that the accused was beating the deceased under the influence of liquor and was ill-treating the deceased in accordance with demand for Rs.5000/-. P.W.1 has deposed that an amount of Rs.5000/- was demanded since the accused wished t