JUDGMENT :

1. Convicts for offence under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] are hereby assailing the judgment and order of conviction recorded by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 56 of 2002 vide judgment and order dated 03.10.2002.

FACTS LEADING TO TRIAL

2. Dharangaon police station chargesheeted in-laws of deceased Shobhabai i.e. mother-in-law, brothers-in-law and their wives for above offence. Allegations that are levelled are that, accused persons persistently and continuously ill-treated Shobhabai physically as well as mentally i.e. hurling abuses, doubting her character and asking her to leave the house premises. The ill-treatment was of such degree that finally she was forced to immolate herself by pouring kerosene. Thus, accused having abetted the said suicide, police chargesheeted them for above offences and they were made to face trial before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon, who permitted prosecution to adduce evidence. After appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Judge got convinced and vide judgment and order dated 03.10.2002, held that accused have ill-treated deceased and they have also, with common intention, further abetted her to commit suicide, and thereby recorded conviction.

Feeling aggrieved by the same, instant appeal is filed.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the appellants:

3. Questioning the legality and maintainability of the judgment, learned counsel for the accused/appellants would point out that here is a unique case where there are charges both, under Section 498-A as well as Section 306 of IPC. However, according to him, husband is not made an accused, rather, only in-laws are roped in, even when prosecution itself has come with a case that appellants in-laws were residing separately. He further pointed out that marriage of deceased was already 25 years old and she has three teen aged sons. He pointed out that deceased immolated herself on 09.01.2002 for the best reasons known to her. That, it has come in the evidence of prosecution itself that deceased was short-tempered. That, there is no material in proximity to alleged suicide to link accused further alleging cruelty, ill-treatment or even abetment.

4. Learned counsel took this court through the dying declarations Exhibits 30 and 43 and would point out that in both dying declarations, deceased merely informed that all accused abused her and accused Usha cursed her. He further pointed out that by no stretch of imagination, mere such solitary episode of alleged utterance or curse could at all be said to be amounting to abetment. He specifically pointed out that in both dying declarations, there are general and omnibus allegations. That, what role each of the accused played has also not been clearly spelt out.

5. He next submitted that here, very capacity of deceased to give two dying declarations in quick succession on the same day, having suffered 100% burns, also is a mysterious question. He invited attention to the evidence of doctor, who allegedly examined victim, and pointed out that firstly, this doctor has not recorded the vitals of deceased before recording her dying declaration and secondly, there is no certification at the beginning of dying declarations regarding fitness to give statement. He pointed out that doctor has admitted that with such degree of burns, a person could be in a confused state. Therefore, according to him, with such evidence emanating from the prosecution witnesses, it is doubtful whether deceased Shobhabai was in a fit state, physical and mental, to give any dying declaration.

6. He next criticized the dying declarations by pointing out that same cannot be said to be voluntary for the simple reason that here, doctor as well as authorities who have recorded dying declaration are admitting in cross that relatives of patient were around at the