1. By this appeal, the appellant/State is challenging the judgment and order dated 30th March 2002 passed by the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Satara, in Sessions Case No.127 of 2000, thereby convicting the respondent/accused of offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. Facts in nutshell leading to the prosecution of the respondent/accused are thus:

(a) PW2 Saraswati Aangre is the First Informant in the instant case. She is a resident of Pune. Her daughter Sujata married respondent/accused on 28th April 1999. Thereafter, she started cohabiting with the respondent/accused at Wai in Satara district. They were residing in the tenanted premises owned by PW4 Jaywant Mandhare. The respondent/accused was serving in the Life Insurance Company.

(b) It is case of the prosecution that the respondent/accused was suspecting the character of Sujata and torturing her mentally by stating that she has some affair at Pune and she looks at strangers. According to prosecution case, on two occasions, Sujata was aborted against her wish. Thus, according to the prosecution case, the respondent/accused used to subject his wife Sujata to cruelty by suspecting her character as well as by forcing her to abort on two occasions. Fed up with constant ill-treatment, on 20th March 2000, in the morning hours, Sujata committed suicide by jumping in the canal. Her dead body was then fished out of the canal. Report (Exhibit 30) of the accidental death of Sujata was lodged by the respondent/accused on 20th March 2000 itself.

(c) After receipt of intimation of death of Sujata, her parental relatives went to Wai. Her mother PW2 Saraswati Aangre lodged First Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit 24) against the respondent/accused on 20th March 2000 itself. The Investigating Officer then recorded statement of witnesses. Dead body of Sujata was sent for autopsy and on completion of routine investigation, chargesheet for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code came to be filed against the respondent/accused.

(d) After framing charge, in order to bring home guilt to the respondent/accused, the prosecution has examined in all seven witnesses. In order to prove abetment by the respondent/ accused to deceased Sujata by subjecting her to cruelty within one year of her marriage, the prosecution has placed reliance on evidence of PW1 Sanjay Aangre – brother, PW2 Saraswati Aangre – mother and PW3 Aatmaram Aangre – cousin uncle and PW5 Tukaram Hovale – maternal uncle of deceased Sujata. The prosecution has also examined landlord cum neighbour of the respondent/ accused and deceased Sujata namely, PW4 Jaywant Mandhare. Police Head Constable Jyotiram Bhosale is examined as PW6 to prove suicidal death, whereas the Investigating Officer Dipak Savant, Assistant Police Inspector, is examined as PW7.

(e) After hearing the parties, the learned trial court concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove that deceased Sujata was subjected to cruelty by the respondent/accused or he had abetted commission of suicide by Sujata by subjecting her to cruelty. Accordingly, by the impugned judgment and order, the learned Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge was pleased to acquit the respondent/accused.

3. I have heard the learned APP appearing for the appellant/State. He vehemently argued that by clear and cogent evidence of brother, mother and cousin uncle of deceased Sujata, the prosecution has established cruel treatment by the respondent/accused to deceased Sujata, who died within one year from her marriage with the respondent/accused, and therefore, offences alleged against the respondent/accused are proved. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent/ accused justified the impugned judgment and order.

4. I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the record and proceedings including deposition of witnesses and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.

5. Now let us