The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of mens rea or community of intention for abetment of suicide, and the need for substantial and compelling reasons to disturb the trial court's acquittal.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 3-11- 2003 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, acquitting respondent (accused) for the offence punishable under Sections 498A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and 306 (Abetment of suicide) of Indian Penal Code.

2. As none appeared for respondent, this court appointed Ms Spenta Havewala as Amicus Curaie. Before I proceed with the case, I must express my appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth by Ms Havewala, learned Amicus Curiae, for it has been of immense value in rendering the judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is, complainant Kisan Khandu Vetal (PW-1), had a daughter by name Sunita. Sunita was the third daughter of PW-1. Sunita was married to accused on 19-4-1999 and after marriage Sunita started living with accused at Eklahare Village. The mother and sister of accused were also living with them. The father of accused was in service with India Security Press and during the course of his employment, had died. PW-1 hoping that accused will get job in India Security Press on compassionate ground, got Sunita married to accused, though at the time of marriage accused was unemployed. Sunita had studied upto 12 th Standard. For 12 months after marriage, the couple lived in Eklahare. According to PW-1, the relationship between Sunita and her mother-in-law and sister-in-law was not very cordial. But PW-2, who is the sister of Sunita, says that there were no serious disputes when Sunita was living at Eklahare and married life for some extent, was good.

4. After about a year of marriage, Sunita and accused shifted to Nashik Road. Sunita got job at the house of Nashik Station Master, where she was doing household work including washing of utensils. As part of the job, she was allowed to occupy the servants quarters behind the station masters house. Sunita was not being paid any salary. As accused was unemployed, he used to get drunk and beat Sunita. It seems, accused was telling Sunita to bring Rs.20,000/- from her father, i.e., PW-1, which could be used for doing some business. What business ? Nothing is mentioned.

5. After sometime, accused found a vocation and started selling fruits. As PW-1, due to his own poverty was unable to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/-, accused used to beat Sunita. It seems PW-1 also advised accused to treat Sunita well, but that had no effect on accused. In the meanwhile, Sunita conceived and a daughter was born to her.

6. On or about 18-9-2001, Sunita committed suicide by jumping in front of a running train. It is the case of PW-1, 15 days prior thereto, he had visited Sunita, when Sunita once again complained to him about the ill- treatment at the hands of accused. On 18-9-2001, the Deputy Manager of Nashik Road Railway Station lodged complaint at Nashik Road Railway Police Station. Based on the complaint, an inquest panchnama was done, post mortem was done and the cause of death given is shock due to poly- trauma.

7. On 20-9-2001, PW-1 lodged the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 498A and Section 306 of IPC. After investigation and recording of statements, charge sheet was filed before the JMFC, Railway, Manmad, who committed the case to the Sessions Court for trial as the offence under Section 306 is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. Thereafter, charges were framed and accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Stand of defence is total denial.

8. To drive home the guilt of accused, prosecution led evidence of 6 witnesses namely; Kisan Khandu Vetal (complainant), father of Sunita, as PW-1; Shaila Ashok Gholap, sister of Sunita, as PW-2; Ashok Karbhari Gholap, husband of PW-2, as PW-3; Bharati Tulshiram Gadakh, neighbour of accused and Sunita, as PW-4; Bhagwat Ramdhan Sonawane, Head Constable, as PW-5; Vasant Gurulingappa Patil, PSI, as PW-6.

9. The Apex Court in Ghurey Lal Vs. State of U.P., (2008) 10 SCC 450 h