Cri. Appeal No.116/2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 116/2000 The State of Maharashtra, through Police Station, Bori, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. ...Appellant. Versus 1 Ramkishan s/o Kundlikrao Ghatul, Aged : 27 years, Occu. Agril., 2 Vishnu s/o Kundlikrao Ghatul, Age : 18 years, Occu. Agril., 3 Kundlikrao s/o Jija Ghatul, Aged : 60 years, 4 Mankarna w/o Kundlikrao Ghatul, Age : 55 years, Occu. Household, All R/o Borwadi, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. ...Respondents. Mr. S.G. Nandedkar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 9th December, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 The State of Maharashtra has filed this appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Parbhani dated 17/11/1999 in Sessions Case No. 139/1998 in which the respondents were prosecuted for the offences punishable under Section 498-A, 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2 The prosecution case is that the respondents who were husband and in laws of the complainant’s daughter, ill treated her on account of their unlawful demand of Rs.40,000/- during 7 months of married life of the deceased and thereby treated her with cruelty and abetted her suicide. Cri. Appeal No.116/2000 2 3 The prosecution examined in all five witnesses. The deposition of the Medical Officer who conducted post mortem examination of the dead body of the deceased, is not required to be discussed in detail because it is common ground that the deceased died of suicide. She consumed poison, while she was at the agricultural field on 23rd December, 1997. It is common ground that her dead body was found in the evening since she did not come back from the field till then. 4 The prosecution witness No. 2 is, I think, the most important one. He stated that in May, 1997 his daughter Sindhubai -the deceased- got married to the respondent No.1 Ramkishan. He said, after the marriage Sindhubai went to resident with her husband and her in laws at village Karwali. He said, she was treated well for about one month but thereafter he learnt from her when she visited his house for Panchami festival that she was ill treated by her in laws. He said, Sindhubai told him that her in laws were saying that she was dark, they did not like her and they also demanded Rs.40,000/- from her and also asked her to bring T.V. and gold wring etc.. He said, Sindhubai further told him that all the respondents assaulted her on such demands. This witness further stated that after Panchami festival, he pacified her and sent her back to the respondents. Thereafter he said, Sindhubai was brought back to his house for the purpose of Diwali festival. He said, this time Sindhubai disclosed to him that the respondents were still ill treating her. He said, after Sindhubai stayed with him for one month, he sent his son Madhukar to the respondents to ask as to whether Sindhubai should be sent back to them. He also said that he asked Madhukar to convince and pacify the respondents. He said, Madhukar came back with a message that Cri. Appeal No.116/2000 3 Sindhubai should be sent to the respondents. He said, he sent his daughter along with his nephew Shivhari to the respondents. He said, Shivhari came back and told him that the parents in laws of Sindhubai asked him as to whether he had brought the amount with him etc.. Soon thereafter, within a fortnight also Sindhubai committed suicide. 5 Prosecution witness No.3 is Sindhubai’s cousin Shivhari. He stated that Sindhubai when came to his village for Panchami festival, told him that her in laws were ill treating her, as they were demanding Rs.40,000/- for digging a well and for purchasing T.V. and gold wring etc.. He said, Sindhubai came to his village again during Diwali festival. He said, even then she narrated similar grievance against the respondents. He said, after Diwali he took Sindhubai to the respondents’ house. He said when he reached there, he met all the respondents in their house. He said, at that time, they asked him as to why he did not bring the amount and he said they teased him. He said, he left Sindhubai with the respondents and came back. 6 The third important witness is, prosecution witness No.4 Sawlaji. Incidentally, though Sawlaji is resident of village Karwali. He is related to Sindhubai from her mother’s side. He said, after Sidhubai’s marriage to the respondent No.1, she came to reside at village Karwali. He said, Sindhubai used to visit his family at village Karwali and used to tell him and others, that the respondents were ill treating her on account of their demand of Rs.40,000/- for digging well etc.. 7 The learned judge of the lower Court did not believe the prosecution evidence narrated above and held that the prosecution had failed to prove that the respondents had treated Sindhubai with Cri. Appeal No.116/2000 4 cruelty. Having gone through the judgment of learned judge of the lower Court, I realized that the reasons mentioned in judgment for disbelieving these witnesses, are not really correct. But for following reasons, I am also not inclined to believe the above mentioned narration of the prosecution witnesses. 8 The first and the foremost reason why I would disbelieve these witnesses is because they make an omnibus statement that all the respondents ill treated Sindhubai on account of their unlawful demand of Rs.40,000/-. These witnesses had ample opportunity to inter act with Sindhubai while she was alive and while she allegedly narrated to them her miseries etc.. Despite this, their version about Sindhubai’s ill treatment is in one line that too similar to each other. The prosecution witness No.2, the complainant, the father of the deceased had probably the most opportunities to talk to Sindhubai when she came to his house on two occasions and stayed with him for quite some time. At the time of Diwali festival, Sindhubai stayed with him for almost a month. Despite this, he did not give details as to how the respondents ill treated Sindhubai and what were the roles played by the respondent individually. He stated that Sindhubai told him that all the respondents assaulted her. Sindhubai could have certainly stated as to who amongst the respondents, was more cruel and who amongst them treated her worst. In other words, she could have given details of the ill treatment meted out to her by the respondents individually. Same can be said about witness No.4 Sawlaji. As said above, this witness is resident of village Karwali where Sindhubai came to reside along with the respondents. Though he stated that Sindhubai used to meet him and his family members, he again lacked the details as to what he heard from Sindhubai. I think the Cri. Appeal No.116/2000 5 prosecution witness No.3 Shivhari, the cousin had an occasion to meet the respondents when he went to their house along with Sindhubai. However, he too narrates the incident giving no details at all. He nonchalantly stated that all the respondents asked him why the amount was not brought. He then added that they teased him. Had this witness really met the respondents, he could have certainly given details as to what actually happened between him and the respondents on the other side. He could have stated as to who amongst the respondents demanded the money, who amongst them teased him, what words they used for teasing him etc.. It is thus clear that these witnesses have invented this omnibus story about respondent’s encore ill treatment to Sindhubai. If these witnesses are disbelieved on the point of ill treatment and cruelty, the prosecution case should fail. In a case of cruelty and abetment of suicide of married woman, unless the prosecution proves the cruelty, the presumption available to the Court under Section 113-A of the Indian Evidence Act, does not arise. If such presumption does not arise then the burden to prove as to how and for what reason the married woman had committed suicide, does not shift on the accused. The appeal should therefore, fail. ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. Their bail bonds if any, stand cancelled. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) ts k/ok