The main legal point established in the judgment is that not every cruelty amounts to an offense under Section 498A IPC, and abetment of suicide requires intention or foreseeability of the victim's suicide.

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 14-7-2003 passed by the learned 6th Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Pune, acquitting respondents (accused) of offence punishable under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 306 (Abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution’s case in brief are that marriage of deceased Shehnaz had taken place on 31-5-2002 with Rasul Ghani Baig (accused no.1). Original accused no.2 was the father in law, who died during the pendency of the appeal and the appeal is not against the order of acquittal against original accused no.5 - Sau Bai @ Kulsumbee Hamid Shaikh. Appeal, therefore, survives only against original accused no.1, original accused no.3, who is the mother of original accused no.1 and original accused no.4, who is the brother of original accused no.1 and son of original accused no.3. Admittedly, after marriage Shehnaz cohabited with accused no.1 in her matrimonial home at Kivale, Taluka – Khed, District – Pune.

3. It seems, after some days of the marriage, Rasul (accused no.1) left his job and was staying at home. The father-in-law, who has since died, used to blame Shehnaz for accused no.1 leaving his job. It is alleged that in view of his leaving the job, accused no.1 and Shehnaz went to the house of her parents, i.e., PW-1 and PW-2 and accused no.1 demanded a sum of Rs.60,000/- from the family for starting some business. The family of PW-1 and PW-2, i.e., the in-laws of accused no.1, expressed their inability to cough up such large amount because of which, the accused started ill treating Shehnaz.

4. It is also alleged that whenever Shehnaz used to meet her parents, she would lament about the ill treatment in her matrimonial home. I have to note here that, there are no specific allegations against each of the accused, as to how each one would ill treat Shehnaz. On 5-10-2002, Shehnaz was found dead in the well near their house. PW-1, therefore, lodged a complaint in Khed Police Station against the accused alleging that they ill-treated Shehnaz and thereby abetted her to commit suicide.

5. After completion of investigation and recording of statements, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet to the court of JMFC, Khed. By an order dated 8-1-2003, the matter was committed to Sessions Court. Postmortem report was received during the trial of the case. Postmortem indicates the cause of death is due to drowning. Trial Court framed charges and the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Statements of the accused were also recorded, in which, they have denied all allegations and according to the accused, Shehnaz’s drowning was an accident.

6. To drive home their case, prosecution examined 5 witnesses as against 12, listed in the charge sheet. These 5 witnesses are Sher Mohammad Babulal Inamdar-complainant and father of Shehnaz, as PW-1; Sugrabee Sher Mohammad, mother of Shehnaz, as PW-2; Manik Shivaji Kadam, friend of PW-1, as PW-3 (he was declared hostile); Dnyandeo Raskar, ASI, who noted the complaint made by PW-1, as PW-4 and Rajendra M Bhambre, Investigating Officer, as PW-5.

7. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 has culled out the factors to be kept in mind by the Appellate Court while hearing an appeal against acquittal. Paragraph Nos.72 and 73 of the said judgment read as under:

72. The following principles emerge from the cases above:

1. The appellate court may review the evidence in appeals against acquittal under sections 378 and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the appellate court can reappreciate the entire evidence on record. It can review the trial court's conclusion with respect to both facts and law.

2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

The accused possessed this presumption when he was before the trial