The judgment emphasizes the requirement to establish cruelty for the ofences under Ss. 306 and 498-A of IPC and the application of Sec. 113-A of the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT

1. This Appeal is preferred by the State of Maharashtra challenging the judgment and order dtd. 16/3/2007, passed by Ad-hoc District Judge, Satara, acquitting the accused for the ofences punishable under Ss. 306 read with 34 and 498-A read with 34 of Indian Penal Code ("IPC', for short).

2. The respondents herein were accused nos.1 to 5. Learned advocate for respondents, on instructions, submitted that respondent nos.3 and 4 has expired during the pendency of this Appeal. Respondent no.3 has died on 19/6/2014, and, respondent no.4 has expired on 9/9/2021. The photocopies of the death certifcates are produced, which are taken on record and marked "X' and "X-1', for identifcation. The Appeal as against the said respondents would stand abated.

3. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was married to respondent no.1 (accused no.1) about three and half years prior to the incident in question. The FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased on 26/11/2004. For a period of about one year after the marriage, the deceased was treated well. However, thereafter, the accused had ill treated the deceased. There was demand of articles by them. There was continuous harassment to the deceased. Accused no.1 was instigated by other accused and on instigation, the accused no.1 used to abuse and assault the deceased. On 24/11/2004, the deceased, her mother had attended the wedding ceremony of relatives. On account of not fulflling demand, there was altercation and the deceased was slapped by her mother-in-law. On 25/11/2004, the deceased was missing from the house. Her body was found below the tree on 26/11/2004. Bottle of insecticide was found at the place of incident. The postmortem was conducted and the report was received relating to cause of death. The accused were arrested. Accused no.1 is the husband of the deceased. The other accused are relatives of accused no.1.

4. Prosecution examined nine witnesses. P.W.1 Vithal Keskar is the complainant. He is brother of the deceased. P.W. Balasaheb Keskar is the uncle of deceased. P.W.3 Dilip Dhaigude is the panch witness for panchanama, P.W.4 Kalpana is the aunt of the deceased. P.W.5 Dropada Keskar is the mother of deceased, P.W.6 Dr. Ashok Kosgaonkar is the medical oficer, P.W.7 Dattatraya Kadam is the panch witness for spot panchanama, P.W.8Kisan Karande is the police head constable, P.W.9 Dilip Dhumal, is the investigating oficer.

5. Trial Court after analysing the evidence, had concluded that the prosecution has not been been able to prove the charges under Sec. 306 read with 34 of IPC and Sec. 498-A read with 34 of IPC.

6. The State is aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal and hence preferred this Appeal challenging the impugned judgment.

7. Learned APP submitted that the trial Court has committed an error in acquitting the accused. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and relied upon several documentary evidence. The Court had overlooked the evidence of witnesses. There is suficient evidence to prove the charges under Ss. 306 and 498-A of IPC. The deceased was continuously harassed by the accused. There was demand of articles. She was physically and mentally tortured. The last incident had occurred on 24/11/2004. The deceased was missing from house on 25/11/2004. She was found dead on 26/11/2004. She consumed insecticide, which had resulted in her death. The bottle of insecticide was found near her body. The victim had committed suicide within 3 to 4 years from her marriage. Sec. 113-A of Evidence Act could be invoked in the present case. The prosecution has adduced cogent evidence to prove the charges. The evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.4 and P.W.5 clearly establish cruelty against the victim, which has compelled her to commit suicide. There was instigation/abetment at the instance of accused for the victim to commit suicide. There is no reason to discard the evidence of witnesses. Minor discrepancies in evidence does not afect the case of prosecution. Trial Court