The judgment emphasizes the need for specific evidence and a nexus between alleged cruelty and suicide to establish charges under Section 498(A) and Section 306 of the IPC. It also reinforces the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused, highlighting the principles for adjudging appeals against acquittal.

JUDGMENT :

K.R. SHRIRAM, J.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.147 OF 2009

1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 29th March 2008 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge-3 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sewree, acquitting respondents (accused) of offences punishable under Section 498(A) (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty) and Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) on the basis that the prosecution was unable to prove, beyond all reasonable doubt, the commission of the alleged offences by the accused.

2. On 15th January 2001 since nobody appeared for respondents, this Court appointed Ms. Ayushi Anandpara, Advocate to represent respondents and assist the Court in appeal as well as revision application. Before I proceed with the case, I must express my appreciation for the assistance rendered and endeavour put forth by Ms. Anandpara, Advocate, for it has been of immense value in rendering the judgment.

3. The case of the prosecution is that victim was one Vaishali aka Namrata, the daughter of complainant (PW-1). Vaishali was married to accused no.3 on 25th April 1996. Accused nos.1 and 2 are the in-laws of Vaishali. Accused no.2 is also the sister of complainant’s husband. Complainant’s father-in-law had a saloon shop in Worli, which was given on rent to accused no.1. After 6 months of the marriage of Vaishali and accused no.3, Vaishali informed complainant that accused no.2 asked Vaishali to tell her mother, i.e., Complainant (PW-1), to stop taking rent for the saloon shop. Complainant (PW-1) refused on the basis that the actual rent for the saloon shop was Rs.6,000/- but the accused were only paying Rs.3,000/-. Further, her economic condition was not good and she would consider their proposal once her son was employed. Thereafter, Vaishali informed complainant (PW-1) that the accused began to harass her and accused no.3 would beat her. In May 2001, Vaishali alongwith her two children visited Complainant (PW-1) at Chiplun and informed complainant (PW-1) of the harassment. In October 2001, Vaishali once again informed complainant (PW-1) that she was being harassed. Hence, complainant (PW-1) visited the accused and told them not to harass Vaishali. However, the accused told complainant (PW-1) not to visit the house again. From October 2001, the accused also stopped paying the rent for the saloon shop. On 8th January 2002, complainant (PW-1) received a call informing her that Vaishali was serious. Accordingly, PW-1 alongwith her son rushed to Mumbai. On reaching Mumbai, PW-1 came to know that Vaishali had committed suicide by setting herself on fire. Accordingly, on 9th January 2002, an FIR was lodged by complainant (PW-1) under Sections 498(A), 306 and 34 of the IPC against the accused.

4. On the basis of the FIR, the chargesheet was filed on 25th May 2002 before the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 32nd Court, Mumbai. The chargesheet mentions 12 witnesses to be deposed on behalf of the prosecution. By an order dated 11th July 2002, the case was committed to the Sessions Court as the charges under Section 306 is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. The charges were framed on 24th November 2007.

5. The prosecution led evidence of four witnesses. PW-1, complainant reiterated the contents of the FIR. Pertinently, her evidence does not bear any reference to the fact stated in the FIR that she informed the accused that the saloon shop would fetch rent of Rs.6,000/- and that the accused were only paying Rs.3,000/-. Further, in her cross examination, PW-1 admits that her elder son is employed as a conductor with MSRTC since 1995 prior to the marriage of Vaishali but the stand taken by PW-1 is that she will consider not charging the rent after her son gets employed. Vaishali had already got married in 1996 and before that PW-1’s son was already employed. PW-1 also admits that Vaishali had no