The judgment established the importance of specific evidence of abetment in cases of suicide and emphasized the assessment of matrimonial cruelty in determining liability under IPC.

JUDGMENT :

Atul Sreedharan, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant, aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 10-07-2019 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Multai, District Betul, in Sessions Trial No. 101/2018. The appellant has been found guilty and convicted to suffer seven years RI for the of-fence under Section 306 IPC and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- with an additional RI of three months in default thereof. He has also been convicted for an offence under Section 498-A of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of the same, to undergo RI of an additional three months. With the consent of parties, this appeal is finally heard.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant herein who is a labourer, is the husband of the deceased Bhimibai. The marriage was solemnised with the consent of both the parties and their families on 16-05-2017. The deceased consumed poison and died on 04-07-2018, just about a year after she got married.

3. Vide order dated 10-12-2018, charges were framed against the appellant u/Ss. 304-B and 498-A of IPC. However, as the prosecution was unable to prove the demand of dowry, the learned court below acquitted him of the charge under Section 304-B but convicted him for an offence under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC. It would be relevant to mention here that the appellant was never charged under Section 306 of IPC.

4. PWs 1 and 2, are the father and the mother of the deceased, who have stated in their evidence that the deceased, after marriage was a victim of physical violence by the appellant. This violence, according to the prosecution was inflicted upon the deceased by the appellant under the influence of alcohol or, upon the refusal of the deceased to give money to the appellant to consume alcohol. These witnesses have also stated that the appellant had pawned the mangalsutra and silver anklets of the deceased for the purpose of consuming alcohol. They have stated that whenever the deceased used to come to her parental home, she used to inform them about the violence being inflicted upon her by the appellant for extracting money from her for the purpose of consuming alcohol.

5. PWs 3 and 4, are the aunt and uncle of the deceased whose testimonies reveal that their evidence is hearsay, as none of them state that they have ever heard the deceased inform PWs 1 and 2, in their presence, about the violence being inflicted upon the deceased by the appellant and neither do they state that the deceased herself had ever informed them directly.

6. PW 7 is the doctor who performed the post-mortem examination. He says that there was a lacerated injury on the neck of the deceased measuring 2 x 1 x 1.5 cms and the same was caused by hard and blunt instrument within 24 hours of the post-mortem examination and that it was simple in nature. As regards the opinion pertaining to cause of death, he says that it is inconclusive and left it open to be inferred on appreciating the report of the chemical analyst, pertaining to the viscera. The postmortem report proved by the witness is Exhibit P/6. The viscera report dated 24-09-2018 is Exhibit P/13. It reveals that Phorate, an organophosphorus insecticide was found in the visceral organs (parts of liver, kidney, spleen, lungs, heart, stomach and stomach contents, large intestine and small intestine) thus, it could be inferred that the deceased died on account of ingesting the aforementioned toxic substance.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that PWs 1 and 2 have been declared hostile and therefore, their statements are unworthy of reliance and that the rest of the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. In fact, he has submitted that there is no legal evidence on which the learned trial Court could have based the conviction of the appellant.

8. Having gone through the statement of PW 1, this Court finds that in paragraphs-1 and 2 (examination-in-chief), the witness has clearly i