The main legal point established in the judgment is that continuous abuse, assault, and harassment by the accused, leading to the deceased's suicide, constitute cruelty within the meaning of sec. 498-A of IPC and abetment under sec. 306 of IPC.

JUDGMENT

ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J. - . This is an Appeal under sec. 374 of Cr.P.C. directed against the judgment and order dtd. 20/10/1997 in Sessions Case No.453/1995, Pune.

2. By the impugned judgment, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Pune, has held the Appellants (hereinafter referred to as the accused) guilty of offences under Sec. 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused no.1 is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.2,000.00 in default simple imprisonment for two months for offence under sec. 306 of IPC whereas, the accused no.2 was sentenced for the said offence simple imprisonment for six months with fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. No separate sentence has been awarded in respect of offence under sec. 498-A of IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution in brief is as under :- The deceased Janabai was married to the accused no.1 Ramdas Dhondu Kalatkar. They had two daughters from the said wedlock. The first daughter died an accidental death. It is the case of the prosecution that after the delivery of the second child, the parents of Janabai brought her home. When she returned to her matrimonial home, she found that the accused no.1 was living with the accused no.3 Bharti. Janabai complained of ill-treatment at the hands of her husband (accused no.1), mother-in-law (accused no.2) and Bharti (accused no.3). The parents and the brother of the deceased Janabai intervened and tried to convince accused no.1- Ramdas as well as accused no.3 Bharti not to ill-treat Janabai. It is also alleged that the accused no.1 and Bharti continued ill-treating and harassing Janabai. On 09/10/1992, said Janabai committed suicide by jumping in a well alongwith her daughter. Accidental death No.73/1992 came to be registered. Body of the deceased was sent for post mortem. The post mortem confirmed that the death of Janabai was due to asphyxia due to drowning.

4. PW1 Bhanudas Darekar, the brother of Janabai lodged the FIR (Exhibit 13) against the accused-Ramdas, his mother-Nakhubai and Bharti for ill-treating Janabai and for abetting her suicide. Pursuant to the said FIR, PW5 Hajarat Pasha, PSI attached to Nigdi Police Station registered Crime No.297/1992. He recorded statements of witnesses and upon completion of the investigation, submitted the charge sheet against the accused no.1 Ramdas, accused no.2 Nakhubai and accused no.3 Bharti for offences under Ss. 498A and 306 r/w. 34 of IPC.

5. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed to be tried. The mother of the accused Nakhubai (A2) died during the pendency of the case. The prosecution in support of its case, examined 06 witnesses. The statements of the accused nos.1 and 3 were recorded under sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. The defence of the accused was of total denial. After considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge held both the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced both the accused i.e., the accused no. Ramdas and accused no.3 - Bharti as stated above. Being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, these accused preferred this Appeal under Sec. 374 of Criminal Procedure Code. The Appellant No.2/ accused no.3 Bharti died during the pendency of this Appeal and the Appeal stood abated as against the Appellant No.2.

6. Assailing the judgment, Mr. Pawan Mail, learned counsel for the accused submits that the death of Janabai was more than seven years from the date of the marriage and hence, presumption under sec. 113A of the Indian Evidence Act is not available. He submits that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not consistent and does not prove either cruelty as defined under sec. 498A or abetment within the meaning of sec. 107 of IPC. He submits that the learned Judge has relied upon the complaint lodged by Janabai (Exhibit - 26) without giving an opportunity to the accused to explain this incriminating circumstance in the statement under sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. He furt