IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that extreme mental and physical cruelty must be proven to support charges of abatement of suicide under IPC, which was not met in this case.

JUDGMENT :

G. A. Sanap, J.

1. In this appeal, challenge is to the judgment and order dated 27.02.2019, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, whereby the learned Judge held the appellant/accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for 2 (two) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for two months for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC ; and to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 (ten) years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) and in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

2. BACKGROUND FACTS :-

The informant (PW3) is the father of deceased Pushpa alias Pinki. The marriage of the accused with the deceased was solemnized on 23.04.2016. The deceased committed suicide on 02.02.2017. The informant, on receipt of the information of death of his daughter, went to her house and saw that she was lying dead with burn injuries. He went to police station and lodged the report. It is stated that after marriage, the deceased went to her matrimonial house at Chincholi Pathar. Initially for three months, the accused did not cause any problem. However, thereafter, he started demanding money. He would insist the deceased to bring money from her parents and on that count, he would harass the deceased. At the time of Diwali festival, the deceased and accused had come to their house. They gave Rs.5,000/- to the accused. They had also gifted the clothes to them.

3. It is stated that the accused is addicted to liquor. The accused after few days of Diwali festival again started demanding money for repairing his motorcycle. He started ill-treating the deceased. The deceased made a phone call to her mother and demanded money. The parents, considering their poor condition, could not fulfil this demand. The deceased had come to the informant in the 7th month of her pregnancy. At that time, she had narrated her mother about the ill- treatment meted out to her by the accused. Her mother conveyed it to the father of the deceased. The informant/father, then inquired with the deceased. The deceased told him that on account of their failure to pay the money, she was subjected to ill-treatment and cruelty at the hands of her husband.

4. On 02.02.2017, at about 4.00 p.m. while the informant was working in his field, he received a message about the death of his daughter. He went to her house with his family members. He found that the deceased was lying in burnt condition. At the time of death, she was carrying eight months’ pregnancy. The informant went to Police Station, Kondhali and lodged the report. On the basis of the report, a crime bearing No. 20/2017 was registered against the accused.

5. PW9 PSI Sonali Bore conducted the investigation. She drew the spot panchanama. She drew the inquest panchanama of the dead body. The Investigating Officer seized the articles and samples from the spot. After completion of the investigation, she filed charge- sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences. Learned Judge framed the charge (Exh.20) against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. His defence is of false implication in this crime. It is his case that since beginning the deceased did not like him. She did not want to stay with him and therefore, she committed suicide. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt against the accused, examined 9 witnesses. Learned Judge, on consideration of the evidence, held the accused guilty and sentenced him as above.

6. I have heard Mrs. Smita P. Deshpande, learned advocate appointed for the appellant and Mr. S.S. Hulke, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the record and proceedings.

7. Mrs. Deshpande, learned advocate submitted that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient