JUDGMENT :

1. Instant appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.12.2001 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1994 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

2. Deceased Chandanbai was married to accused-appellant Narendra on 16.05.1993. After marriage, she went to reside with appellant no.1 husband and in-laws including appellant nos. 2 and 3 i.e. her brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. After marriage, everything was smooth for initial period. However, after five weeks, when deceased Chandanbai visited her parents’ house, she reported that all accused are demanding Rs.10,000/- for purchasing agricultural land and they wanted the amount to be brought from her father. That, there was threat that if she fails to bring the amount, then she would be divorced and second marriage of husband Narendra would be performed. Accused persons were taunting deceased for not cooking properly and not working properly. They all were always insulting her. Mother-in-law instigated husband saying that parents of Chandanbai insulted her, as a result of which husband beat deceased by means of stick. On 21.04.1994, a letter from deceased was received to PW4 brother regarding demand of new clothes to her father-in-law. Therefore new clothes were also arranged. However, on 25.04.1994, message was received about Chandanbai to be serious. When brother and other relatives reached village Manjre, they learnt that deceased Chandanbai had suffered burns and therefore complaint Exhibit 28 was lodged by brother, on the basis of which crime was registered by Nandurbar Police Station. PW6 carried out investigation and filed charge sheet for commission of offence punishable under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution, learned trial Judge held accused guilty for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment and to pay fine respectively. Said judgment dated 20.12.2001 is now assailed before this court.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned trial Judge has already acquitted accused persons from charge under Section 304-B IPC as well as under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, learned trial Judge ought not to have held accused guilty of offence under Section 498-A of IPC. It is emphasized that there is no independent, reliable evidence in support of charge of cruelty. That, even accepting the case of prosecution witnesses, there was mere taunting and there was no mental or physical harassment so as to attract offence of 498-A IPC. He submitted that there was no previous complaint at any point of time but merely on losing sister, brother had set law into motion out of annoyance.

4. He next submitted that trial court has also convicted appellants for offence under Section 306 of IPC but, according to him, there is no evidence about abetment to commit suicide or instigation as a result of which deceased committed suicide. He pointed out that there is no material whatsoever to show that there was cruelty which was of such nature that deceased was left with no other alternative but to immolate herself. According to him, none of the ingredients which are required for attracting such offence are available in the prosecution evidence. Therefore, it is his submission that learned trial court has not only failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective, but has also not considered the settled legal position. According to him, here prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. He reiterated that except mother and brother, who are interested witnesses, no other relative or even neighbour was examined. That, in the entire case mens rea or ill intention is