Vague allegations without specific instances do not establish charges under Section 498-A; for abetment of suicide under Section 306, there must be clear evidence of instigation or inducement.

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. In this appeal, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 05.08.2004, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2003, recording the guilt of the appellant for offences punishable under section 498-A read with Section 34 and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

2. In brief, case of the prosecution is that, deceased Mangala was married to present Gajanan Derne in the year 1996 and after marriage, she went to cohabit with her husband. After the marriage, Gajanan maintained his wife peacefully and properly about one year. Deceased Mangala was residing with her husband at Himayatnagar with her children. Prior to eight days of the incident, accused no.2 Saraswatibai came to the house of deceased Mangala and quarrelled with her and abused her. So also, prior to 2 to 3 months, accused No.1 Gyanoba came to the house of deceased and quarrelled with her and abused her. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were allegedly visiting the house of the deceased and demanding money from time to time. Therefore, on 22.01.2003, between 05:00 p.m. and 06:00 p.m., Mangala allegedly poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire, resulting in her death by suicide After investigation, charges were framed against accused persons, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in- law of the deceased Mangala. Precise indictment was on allegation that, there was physical and mental cruelty in the backdrop of demand of money. On trial, case of prosecution was accepted and learned Trial Judge rendered above judgment of conviction. Precisely, the same has been taken exception by way of instant appeal.

SUBMISSIONS On behalf of appellant :

3. At the threshold, learned counsel for appellants pointed out that, in this case, three accused were chargesheeted, however, during pendency of appeal, father-in-law and brother-in-law have expired, and as such, appeal stands abated against them, and consequently, appeal now remains against only mother-in-law.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is appellant’s false implication. That, there is no convincing, cogent and legal acceptable evidence. That, there is only evidence of near and dear ones and no independent witness like neighbour has been examined. That, general and sweeping allegations are made against in-laws regarding alleged demand, taunting and insulting. Learned counsel pointed out that, in fact, deceased and her husband i.e. son of accused nos.1 and 2 were residing separately since marriage itself, whereas appellants resided at distinct place. That, none of the witnesses has elaborated specific role of the any of the appellant and rather omnibus allegations are levelled. Allegations are made that there are taunting on complexion and not preparing food, but such allegations are general in nature, and who amongst the three accused taunted and when has not been stated by any of the witnesses. Learned counsel pointed out that, only two visits of deceased to her parents house has come on record i.e. during Diwali and Panchami. That, marriage is of the year 1996 and during which year of such festivals, there was reporting has not been stated by witnesses. Resultantly, according to the learned counsel evidence as regards to offence under Section 498-A of the is weak and fragile.

5. Learned counsel pointed out that, as regards to offence of 306 of IPC is concerned, it is pointed out that, there is no material suggesting presence of the appellants and further they too have indulged in abetment, inducement or instigation in any manner to commit suicide. Learned counsel pointed out that appellants admittedly being residing at distinct place and their visits to the house of deceased are not coming on record so as to hold continuous harassment of any manner. Learned counsel pointed out that, complaint is out of annoyance because appellant, father-in-law did not purchase agricultural land i