The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, and the accused cannot be convicted merely on the basis of suspicion.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. SHINDE, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.11.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur, thereby convicting the appellants-original accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC’).

2. The complainant Sangita Bansiddha Deshmukh is the mother of deceased Ashwini. Ashwini was the wife of accused No. 1 Bargalsiddha Dharmanna Padwale resident of Mandrup, Taluka South-Solapur. The accused No. 1 married with Ashwini on 29.05.2013 at Mandrup. Their marriage was performed as per religion rites by giving all honour and gifts. After marriage, Ashwini went to cohabit at the house of accused. Accused No. 2 Sugalabai is the mother-in-law, accused No. 3 Dharmanna is father-in-law, accused No. 4 Shivaji is brother-in-law and accused No. 5 Kushalabai is grandmother-in-law of deceased Ashwini. All accused were residing together and Ashwini was cohabiting in their house. After marriage Ashwini was treated well for about one month. Thereafter, all accused started ill-treating and harassing her on the ground that, she does not know cooking, household work and work in the field. Ashwini used to inform her mother and relatives about mental harassment and ill-treatment given to her on phone. When Sangita (Complainant) came to know about ill-treatment and harassment to Ashwini, she informed said fact to her relatives from both sides. Sangita and her brother-in-law Amogi Madappa Deshmukh, Limbaji Madappa Deshmukh, relative Suresh Arjun Khandekar, Rangnath Siddhu Kokare etc. went to convince the accused for not ill-treating and harassing Ashwini. However, their efforts went in-vain. Accused No. 2 Sugalabai and accused No. 5 Kushalabai told them that, Ashwini does not know the agriculture work, however her husband has knowledge of driving, therefore, they should purchase one vehicle called ‘Tumtum’ for accused No. 1. They used to continuously harass Ashwini for purchasing Tumtum. They also used to beat her. The complainant and her family members came to know about beating to Ashwini. The informant and her husband went to the house of accused. At that time all accused were present in the house, they again made demand of Tumtum and accused No. 1 threatened them if demand is not fulfilled he will kill Ashwini.

3. On 05.06.2014 at about 6.00 a.m. complainant Sangita received information on phone that, Ashwini had sustained burn injuries in the house of accused No. 5 Kushalabai Kore. Informant and her relatives went to the house of accused No. 5, at that time people were gathered in front of the house. Informant with her relative entered in the house of accused No. 5. They saw that Ashwini was completely burnt and was lying in dead condition in bathroom. The informant and her relatives realized that accused poured kerosene and set her ablaze and killed her for non fulfillment of their demand of Tumtum for the benefit of Accused No. 1. Therefore, complainant went to Police Station and lodged complaint which was registered vide C.R. No. 70 of 2014 under section 498-A, 302 read with 34 of the I.P.C. on 05.06.2014.

4. Mr. Prakash Raskar, then API Mandrup Police Station went to the spot of incident. The victim was completely burnt and lying in dead condition. He has sent the dead body to Rural Hospital, Mandrup. He has carried out inquest panchanama at Rural Hospital, Mandrup in presence of panchas. Thereafter, he went to spot of incident and carried out spot panchanama in presence of panchas. He seized one plastic can having one liter kerosene having black cork and jute thread, so also plain soil, soil contain with kerosene, half burnt match stick. He also seized muddemal articles under panchanamas. He recorded statements of witnesses. He tried to search accused, however they were not traced out. He seized ornaments, and green colour bangles of deceased.

5. On 06.06.2014 he received an information that accused have come in their f