For a conviction under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or abetment is required, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

1. Convicts for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC] are hereby assailing the judgment and order dated 26.08.2005 passed by learned IInd Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon in Sessions Case No. 40 of 2005 holding both parents-in-law of deceased Manisha guilty of above offence.

2. During pendency of the appeal, as appellant no.2 Subhadra died, appeal is abated against her and now only appeal of appellant no.1 Prabhakar is for consideration before this Court.

CASE OF PROSECUTION

3. In nutshell, both in-laws of deceased were chargesheeted by Varangaon Police Station on accusation that they subjected their daughter-in-law to physical and mental cruelty. Mother-in-law used to continuously abuse whereas, father-in-law beat her and therefore, getting fed up of such maltreatment, she immolated herself on 30.11.2004 and suffered 97% burns. While undergoing treatment, PW5 Investigating Officer recorded dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and on the strength of the same, registered crime bearing no.103 of 2004 and himself carried out investigation and finally chargesheeted the in-laws and they were made to face trial before Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalgaon vide Sessions Case No. 40 of 2005.

4. Learned trial Judge appreciated the evidence of prosecution comprising of five witnesses and also analyzed the documentary evidence. Defence did not lead any evidence. On complete appreciation and after hearing both sides, judgment of conviction for offence under Sections 498-A and 306 r/w 34 of IPC has been rendered, which is now questioned by way of instant appeal.

EVIDENCE BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT

5. The status and role of the five witnesses examined by prosecution, and the sum and substance of their evidence can be summarized as under :

PW1 Yogesh acted as pancha to spot panchanama Exhibit 14.

PW2 Shravan, father, who is examined at Exhibit 15, deposed that his daughter was married to Ganesh Soparkar and she went to cohabit with husband and in-laws at Varangaon. During first visit paid by his daughter after 4-5 months of marriage, she reported that she was treated properly. He further deposed that during her second visit, which was paid after 4-6 months after her first visit, she disclosed that her father-in-law and mother- in-law ill-treated her. Father-in-law beat her and he also had an evil eye on her. Six months before, he received message about her burns and therefore, they all went to Civil Hospital, Jalgaon where, he claims that, she disclosed that under tension due to mother-in-law and father-in-law, she poured kerosene and set herself on fire.

PW3 Mother Tarabai also deposed that after marriage, their daughter used to visit their house on occasions of festivals and she disclosed that both accused used to ill-treat her. That, she was not provided proper food, she was beaten and scolded on trifle reasons. She came for delivery and later on returned to her matrimonial house. The incident took place 4-5 months prior and they received phone call and so they visited Civil Hospital. There, on being asked as to what happened, witness claims that, her daughter replied that accused prevented her from accepting telephone calls received from them and also disclosed that father-in-law had evil eye on her and hence, due to tension, she committed suicide.

PW4 Medical Officer, who attended deceased on admission on 30.11.2004 at 6.45 p.m., deposed about police approaching him for recording dying declaration and he issuing opinion at Exhibits 20 and 21.

PW5 PSI Damale is the Investigating Officer.

SUBMISSIONS

On behalf of the Appellant:

6. Pointing to the above evidence, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the charges. According to him, essential ingredients for attracting neither of the charge were available in the prosecution evidence. Taking this court through the evidence of parents, he submitted th