The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity to prove the elements of the offences under Sections 498-A, 304B, and 306 of the IPC, including the requirement to establish cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry, and the parameters of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

V.G.Bisht, J. - This appeal is filed by the State challenging the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31st August, 2004 passed in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2004 by learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304 (B) read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC").

2. The occurrence that led to launching of prosecution is that, the informant's niece, namely, Pooja (since deceased) was married to accused Sachin Appasaheb Gaikwad (A-1) before two years from the date of lodging of the report. Accused Appasaheb Tatyaba Gaikwad (A-3), accused Sarubai Tatyaba Gaikwad (A-5), accused Sandip Appasaheb Gaikwad (A-2) and accused Shobha Sandip Gaikwad (A-4) are father-in-law, grand-mother-in-law, brother-in-law and sister-in-law and of the deceased respectively.

3. The prosecution alleges that after one month of marriage, A-1 and A-5 started asking deceased to bring a ring of one Tola and showcase almari from her parents and on that ground they started beating her. Even the deceased was driven to the house of her aunt, namely, Sunita Gaikwad (PW-3) but on her persuasion, the deceased again resumed cohabitation with accused.

4. The prosecution further alleges that all the accused, however, thereafter again used to beat deceased from time to time, make her starve and indulge in tongue lashing. Whenever the informant used to visit deceased or have a talk with him telephonically, she used to tell about harassment at the hands of accused. The prosecution further alleges that prior to 8 to 9 months of lodging of the report, all the accused drove deceased out after beating but due to intervention of police from Neera Police Chowki, she again resumed cohabitation.

5. According to prosecution, on 30th November, 2003, the informant got a message from PW-3 about the burning of deceased and her admission to Sassoon Hospital. By the time, informant and others reached to the hospital, the deceased was dead.

6. The informant on the next date lodged the complaint against accused on the basis of which Crime No. 93 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 498 -A, 306, 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC with Jejuri Police Station came to be registered against all the accused.

7. On going through the record, it is seen that PW-5 Vishwanath Dnyandeo Ghanwat, API of Jejuri Police Station was handed over the investigation. He visited the place of occurrence and drew spot panchnama (Exh. 35). He also recorded the statements of witnesses, seized various articles from the spot and after the completion of investigation, forwarded the chargesheet against accused.

8. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined as many as five witnesses and exhibited number of documents. The respondents-accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "the Cr.PC") about the incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against them and they denied all of them as false. According to A-2, since beginning they have got two motorcycles and therefore, they never demanded amount of Rs. 20,000/- to purchase motorcycle. According to A-3, father-in-law, despite the financial condition of deceased being poor, he got his son married and after four months of marriage, the deceased and his son started living independently. Similarly, according to PW-4, her in-laws got his brother, namely, A-1 married with deceased despite the economic condition of deceased was poor. Even after the marriage of deceased no quarrel ever took place in the family.

9. Mr.Konde-Deshmukh, learned APP for the appellant -State, submitted that the prosecution despite adducing the cogent and convincing evidence, the learned trial Judge wrongly gave weightage to the minor discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter. On the contrary, the evidence of all the witnesses, more particularly, PW-1 to PW-3 who are close relatives of the deceased have elaborately stated as to ho