Insufficient evidence of specific ill-treatment and lack of direct link to suicide led to the quashing of convictions under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. Convicts for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), by way of instant appeal, are taking exception to the judgment and order dated 28-12-2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.144 of 2004.

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

2. On information passed by PW1 Trimbakrao, crime was registered, as he reported that his daughter Meena was married to appellant no.1 Suresh on 17-04-2000. He paid dowry of Rs.30,000/- and had borne marriage expenses. After marriage, Meena went to cohabit with her husband and in-laws. He reported that, initially for a period of six months, his daughter Meena was treated well but thereafter, there was ill-treatment at the hands of husband and in- laws. There was demand of Rs.1,25,000/-for arranging service for husband. She reported it when she came to maternal house. She had come to maternal home for delivery, but none of the accused including husband came to either see her or the new born and rather sent a message that they would not come to see them unless Rs.1,25,000/- is paid. Informant claims to have arranged Rs.56,000/- and Rs.30,000/- on two occasions. However, inspite of receiving the said amount, there was ill-treatment. Meena reported it when she came for Nagpanchami festival. Barely after 8 to 15 days after Nagpanchami festival, news of Meena consuming poison was received. She died. After necessary rituals, informant set law into motion, on the strength of which, crime was registered and finally investigated by PW10.

After gathering sufficient evidence, accused persons came to be tried by learned Sessions Judge, Jalna, who appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and held charges for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 read with 34 of the IPC as proved and convicted them accordingly.

Precisely above judgment and order of conviction is now subject matter of appeal before this Court.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of appellants :

3. Learned Counsel for appellants would submit that there is false implication. He pointed out that there are general and vague allegations. That witnesses are merely deposing about ill-treatment, but none of them has clarified or specified what was the nature of ill- treatment and at the hands of which of the accused amongst the five accused. He submitted that only on two occasions, deceased had been to the house of informant. He pointed out that there are allegation of money for service, but none of witnesses could clarify for which job said amount was required. He pointed out that another piece of evidence, which prosecution is relying, is at exh.35. However, he pointed out that text of inland itself shows that there was no demand, rather husband was insisting his wife to return back to cohabit with him and this all can be gathered from exh.35 and therefore, he submitted that said inland letter does not come to the aid of the prosecution.

4. Pointing out to the testimonies of PW2, PW3, PW4, he submitted that they are not consistent. That their testimonies are full of material omissions and contradictions. That no independent witness has been examined and therefore, according to him with such quality of evidence when necessary ingredients for attracting offence under Section 498-A and 306 of the IPC not being made, learned trial Court ought not to have accepted prosecution version.

According to him, there is improper appreciation of evidence and settled law has also not been appreciated by learned trial Judge and therefore, he questions maintainability of such judgment and prays to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment.

On behalf of State :

5. Per contra, refuting above submissions and canvasing in favour of impugned judgment, learned APP pointed out that informant father, brothers and sister of deceased are all in unison deposing about proper treatment for six months and thereafter, on account of demand of Rs.1,25,000/- for job of husband, there was mal- treatment. That deceased also repor