Inadmissibility of hearsay evidence and the requirement for direct witnessing in establishing the offence under Section 498-A of the IPC.

SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned A.P.P. for the State/Prosecution.

2. The appellant has challenged the judgment and order dated 7th February, 2008, passed in Sessions Case No.1 of 2007 by the learned 1st Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, whereby he has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (“IPC”, for short) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-.

3. The deceased Asha and the appellant got married on 22nd May, 2005. The original accused No. 2 is the brother of the appellant, while original accused No. 3 is the wife of original accused No. 2. It is alleged that the appellant and accused Nos. 2 and 3 used to demand Rs. 50,000/- from the parents of the deceased Asha through her for purchasing a tempo and in order to fulfill their demand for money, used to subject her to cruelty. She used to inform about that cruelty to her parents and brother whenever she used to visit her maternal home. Ultimately, on 10th August, 2006, the deceased Asha committed suicide by jumping into a well, being fed up with the harassment meted out to her at her matrimonial home.

4. The brother of the deceased Asha namely Bhausaheb Ransing lodged report against the appellant and original accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Police Station, Ashti on 11th August, 2006, on the basis of which Crime No. 92 of 2006 came to be registered against the appellant and accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The investigation followed. After completion of the investigation, the appellant and accused Nos. 2 and 3 came to be chargesheeted for the above mentioned offences.

5. The learned Trial Judge framed charges against the appellant and accused Nos. 2 and 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B read with Section 34 of the IPC vide Exh-18. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined four witnesses to establish guilt of the appellant and accused nos. 2 and 3 for the said offences.

6. After evaluating the evidence of the prosecution, the learned Trial Judge held that the death of Asha was not suicidal but accidental one. He acquitted the appellant and accused Nos. 2 and 3 of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 304-B of the IPC. He further acquitted accused Nos. 2 and 3 of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC also. However, he convicted the appellant only for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC and sentenced him as stated above.

7. So far as acquittal of accused Nos. 2 and 3 of all the offences and acquittal of the appellant of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 304-B of the IPC is concerned, the State/Prosecution has not filed any appeal to challenge the same. As such, that part of the impugned judgment has attained finality. The only question that is posed for consideration in this appeal is whether the prosecution established that the appellant subjected the deceased Asha to cruelty.

8. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the evidence on record is very vague and general. Bhausaheb (PW1), the informant and Rakhmabai (PW2), who have been examined at Exh-33 and Exh-34, respectively, are the brother and mother respectively of the deceased Asha. They are the only witnesses produced by the prosecution to establish guilt of the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC. Asaram (PW3) (Exh-38/C) is the Police Patil, who had given Accidental Death report to the Police Station and PI Kannade (PW4) (Exh-47), is the Investigating Officer. They are the formal witnesses. He submits that neither Bhausaheb (PW1), nor Rakhmabai (PW2) state that the appellant ever subjected the deceased Asha to cruelty in their presence. Both of these witnesses state that whenever the deceased Asha used to visit their house, she used to t