IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while dowry harassment can be proven under Section 498-A, a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 requires clear evidence of instigation or aiding the victim, and the presumption under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act is not automatic but contingent on the circumstances of each case.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard the respective learned counsels for the parties.

2. The applicant takes exception to the judgments and orders of the conviction of the learned 4th Adhoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, passed in Sessions Case No.106 of 2002, dtd. 21/9/2002 and in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2002 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, dtd. 8/10/2004.

3. The facts of the case in brief were that the applicant married the deceased on 11/12/2001. She went to cohabit with him. It has been alleged that two months after the marriage, the deceased and the accused went to the house of his in-laws. They stayed there for one day. During the stay, the accused demanded Rs.70, 000.00 from the complainant to purchase the motorcycle and plaster the house. The complainant expressed her inability to fulfill his demand due to her poor financial condition. The accused demanded the money in front of her son Sagar and daughter Bharati. On 25/4/2002, the complainant had been to the marriage at Dahigaon with her daughter Bharti. There, the deceased Swati also came. She complained that the accused were beating, abusing and illtreating her for non-fulfilling their demand of Rs.70, 000.00. Her daughter P.W.2 Bharti requested the complainant to allow her to stay with Swati for 4-5 days at her home. Twelve days thereafter, the accused went to leave Bharti to the complainant's house. That time, again, he demanded Rs.70, 000.00 and threatened that she should keep the money ready; otherwise, she would see what would happen in future. The deceased committed suicide by hanging in the house of the accused on 12/5/2002. One Nana Shripati Mhaske lodged a report of the incident on the same day to the Police Station. The police registered the accidental death case. After that, the complainant gave her statement on 13/5/2002, making the above allegations. Therefore, Police Station Nagar Taluka registered Crime No.68 of 2002 against the accused and his relatives under Sec. 498-A and 306, read with Sec. 34 of the I.P.C.

4. Both Courts held the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Ss. 498-A and 306 of the I.P.C. However, the other co-accused were acquitted.

5. Heard the learned counsel for the accused and the learned APP for the State.

6. Learned counsel for the accused has vehemently argued that the second star witness, P.W.2 Bharti, has clearly admitted that she did not know why Swati was beaten at her home while she was staying with her. Her evidence has not been correctly appreciated. Both Courts did not consider the material admissions of the complainant on the better financial condition of the applicants than her. The Courts erred in holding that the contradictory stand of the accused goes against him. The statement of the accused under Sec. 313 has been used against him without considering its object. To bolster his argument, he relied on the case of Mariano Anto Bruno and another Vs. The Inspector of Police ; 2022 Live Law (SC) 834.

7. He further argued that the silence of the deceased till committing suicide about the ill-treatment was not properly considered. The admission of P.W.1/the mother of the deceased, that she is financially poor has also not been considered in the context of the allegation of paying Rs.80, 000.00 to the accused before the marriage. Learned Trial Court and the First Appellate Court did not consider that P.W.1 to 3 were the interested witnesses. The learned Trial Court committed a grave error of Law in observing that the omission to State by P.W.2 Bharti in her statement under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C. about threats by accused No.1 in the house of P.W.1/ the mother of the victim that if the amount is not paid, be prepared for consequences in future cannot be taken as a contradiction and does not affect the core of the statement of the P.W.2. Both Courts did not consider there was delay in lodging the report. Both Courts have erred in believing the evidence of the prosecution that the prosecution has established an off