1. Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 26.04.2002 in Sessions Case 97/1994 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, by and under which, appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under section 498A of I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/and is further convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. and is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/. The appellant is acquitted of offence punishable under section 304B of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution, as is unfolded during the trial, is that the marriage of accused and the deceased Roopa was solemnized sometime in 1991. Roopa committed suicide on 04.04.1994. The appellant along with accused 2 and 3 (father and mother of the accused) subjected the deceased Roopa to cruelty within the meaning of explanation (a) and (b) of section 498A of I.P.C. and thus committed offence punishable under section 304B, 306 and 498A read with section 34 of I.P.C. The father of the accused died during the pendency of the trial and the mother is acquitted of all charges.

3. The prosecution case is that the accused subjected the deceased Roopa to ill-treatment with a view to coerce Roopa to fulfill unlawful demand of cot and Scooter and the cruel treatment which was meted out was sufficient to drive deceased Roopa to commit suicide. The prosecution examined four witnesses to bring home the charge. P.W.1 Chandrashekhar Shridhar Moon is the brother of the deceased and the informant, P.W.2 Tulsabai Shridhar Moon is the mother of the deceased, P.W.3 Meenabai Chandrabhan Khadse is the sister of the deceased and P.W.4 Pramila Krishnaji Sakdeo is family friend of the deceased. The spot panchnama is exhibited on admission (Exh.39).

4. The submission of the learned counsel for the accused Shri R.P. Joshi is two fold. He would submit, firstly, that the prosecution has failed to prove that the death is suicidal. The contention is that accidental death is not ruled out. The learned counsel contends that the mother of the deceased (P.W.2) has admitted that the deceased used to leave the house early in the morning to collect the cow dung. He invites my attention to the spot panchnama which records that a steel container is found near the dead body. The learned counsel for the accused would submit that since the possibility of accidental death cannot be excluded, the finding that the deceased committed suicide is unsustainable.

5. The second submission of the learned counsel for the accused is that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The learned counsel would urge that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.4 is not only sketchy and vague, there are too many inter se discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence to inspire confidence. The learned counsel contends that the evidence of P.W.2 in particular is replete with statements which are proved to be omissions. The omissions are material and significant and partake the character of contradiction. The learned counsel would submit that it would be unsafe to be a conviction on evidence which is not consistent and therefore, not confidence inspiring.

6. The learned counsel would also submit, relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhairaon Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 ALL SCR 213, that if the death of Roopa is held not to be suicidal, then the entire evidence which is based on what is narrated by the deceased to her family members, is rendered inadmissible. The learned counsel would urge that cause of death or the circumstances leading to death is not in issue in trial for charge under section 498A of I.P.C. The learned counsel would rely on the following observations in Bhairaon Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2010 ALL SCR 213:

“4. The legal position relating to the admissibility of evidence under section 32(1) has come up for cons