The appellant/accused assails the concurrent verdict of guilty, conviction and sentence in a prosecution under Secs.306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had married deceased Mini on 16/2/1998. She was allegedly subjected to matrimonial cruelty of the culpable variety by the appellant after 16/2/1998 till 21/6/98. Unable to stand the trauma, Mini allegedly committed suicide on the night of 21/6/98. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was guilty of various acts of matrimonial cruelty punishable under Sec.498-A of the IPC and abetment commission of suicide punishable under Sec.306 of the IPC.

3. The investigation commenced with Ext.P1 – First Information Statement lodged by P.W.2 – brother-in-law of the accused on the basis of which Ext.P1(a) FIR was registered. It culminated with the charge sheet submitted by P.W.18. Consequent to the plea of not guilty raised by the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 21 were examined and Exts.P1 to P18 were proved. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is his brother-in-law. P.Ws.3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 14 are neighbours who reside close to the matrimonial home of the deceased. P.Ws.11 and 12 are the financiers with whom the appellant had pledged the ornaments of Mini after the marriage before the commission of suicide by her. P.Ws.16 to 19 and 21 are the Police Officials who had roles to play in the registration of the crime and investigation. P.W.20 – Doctor conducted the postmortem examination. Others are formal witnesses to unfold the case of the prosecution.

4. On the evidence available, the court below came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of matrimonial cruelty and had abetted the commission of suicide by his wife Mini. Accordingly, the court proceeded to pass the impugned concurrent judgments.

5. Arguments have been advanced before me by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor. The learned counsel for the appellant challenges the concurrent judgments on four grounds. They are:

(1) The Court below should not have placed reliance on the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and 14.

(2) The court below should have found that even if the entire evidence were accepted, no matrimonial cruelty, as defined under Sec.498A of the IPC, is established.

(3) The court below should have held that, at any rate, there is nothing to drive home the charge of abetment to commit suicide.

(4) The sentence imposed is excessive.

6. A contention that no reliance should have been placed on P.Ws.1 to 7 and 14 is strenuously urged. P.W.1 can be said to be interested inasmuch as he is the father of the deceased. P.W.2 is none other than the brother-in-law of the accused. P.Ws.3 to 7 and 14 are all persons who reside in the closest neighbourhood of the appellant. Some of them, to the extent possible, have chosen to support the appellant by turning hostile to the prosecution. P.Ws.3, 4 and 6 were declared hostile also. These witnesses have spoken about the four aspects of the alleged cruelty of the appellant. The deceased was physically belaboured. Her ornaments were pledged against her volition. The appellant was addicted to drinks. He was having an illicit relationship with the sister-in-law of his. These are the four planks on which the prosecution attempted to build up its case of matrimonial cruelty.

7. I shall later consider whether the evidence of these witnesses is sufficient to establish matrimonial cruelty. But, I must say that I am in total agreement with the court below that the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 to 7 and 14 can safely be accepted. There is no reason to approach the testimony with any amount of suspicion or distrust. The neighbouring witnesses, as stated earlier, were prepared to go to any length to support the appellant. The pieces of information which they were constrained to reveal against the interests of the appellant were rightly relied upon by the court below. These witnesses have no reason to speak against the a