Vague allegations of ill-treatment do not constitute legal cruelty under IPC; a clear causal link between accused's actions and victim's suicide must be established.

JUDGMENT :

(Abhay S. Waghwase, J.)

1. In instant appeal, there is challenge to the judgment and order dated 15.04.2004 passed by learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No.121 of 2003 holding appellants guilty for offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

IN BRIEF PROSECUTION VERSION IS THAT

2. Deceased Rashmi was married with appellant on 24.12.2002. After marriage she came to reside with her husband and in-laws. After barely 2 months, she reported ill treatment. Even during her visit at the time of Holi festival on 23.03.2003, she reported ill treatment and taunting on various counts like not preparing meals, giving her humiliating treatment, not allowing her to watch T.V. In spite of she suffering from Typhoid she was asked to do the domestic work and even she was prevented from talking with neighbours. All this was reported during her stay at the time of Holi festival. On 01.05.2003 news of suicide was received by phone call from one Shankar Pardeshi and therefore, PW1 mother lodged report Exh.36, on the basis of which crime was registered.

3. PW6 API Saste carried out investigation and after gathering evidence, charge-sheeted accused. All four accused were made to face trial before III Additional Sessions Judge, who on appreciating the evidence of in all six witnesses, by judgment and order dated 15.04.2004 husband Sudhir, brother-in-law Ganesh, father-in-law Chandrakant, mother-in-law Manda were held guilty for offence punishable under sections 498-A and 306 read with section 34 IPC.

Feeling aggrieved by the above judgment and order of conviction, instant appeal has been preferred.

STATUS AND ROLE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES

4. The prosecution has examined following 06 witnesses in support of its case. Their role, status and sum and substance of evidence is as under :

PW1 Sangita, informant and mother of deceased, stated that, her daughter married with accused no.1 on 24.12.2002. She went to cohabit with husband and in-laws at Varangaon. During visit of her daughter on 06.02.2003, she deposed about receiving complaints of ill-treatment. She also claims that similar complaints were raised by her daughter during her visit on 23.03.2003. On 01.05.2003 information was received by one Sankar about Rashmi committing suicide by hanging. Therefore, after funeral, she lodged report.

PW2 Baban, paternal uncle, stated that after marriage accused resided jointly. When his niece came to attend the marriage ceremony on 06.02.2003, she reported ill treatment at the hands of accused. Even during visit of 23.03.2003, she reported taunting and harassment. According to him, there was demand of car and for non fulfillment of the same, there was harassment. He also deposed about receiving news on 01.05.2003 regarding Rashmi hanged herself.

PW3 Minakshi, aunt claims that on 06.02.2003, Rashmi told her that there was taunting, accused asked her to fetch the water after taking a bath when the tap open at 1:30 a.m., prohibiting her from watching T.V., taunting for not preparing good meal. During Holi festival also she reported ill treatment and cruelty.

PW4 Suresh, spot pancha, who identified spot panchanama vide Exh.25.

PW5 Dr. Aabid, autopsy surgeon, who after conducting post mortem issued opinion about death due to asphyxia due to hanging and according to him it was a suicidal case by hanging.

PW6 API Saste is the Investigating Officer.

SUBMISSIONS On behalf of Appellants :

5. Here, there is evidence of mother informant PW1 Sangita, paternal uncle PW2 Baban and aunt PW3 Minakshi. Precise case of appellant is that, allegations are general and vague in nature. That, allegations are directed against all accused without specifying role and according to learned counsel, cruelty has not been proved as is contemplated under law so as to attract section 498-A IPC. Submissions are also advanced that, there is nothing to indicate that there was abetment, inducement or incitement to commit s