1 Anando IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.455 OF 1993 1. Dilip Uttamchand Bora ..Appellants Age : 36 years, Occu : business 2. Kantabai Ramanlal Bora Age : 36 years, Occu : household work 3. Ramanlal Uttamchand Bora Age : 41 years, Occu : business 4. Bharati Ramanlal Bora Age : 21 years, Occu : household work All residing at Kavathe, Taluka : Shirur, District : Pune. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.Uday Warunjikar with Mr.Vilas Tapkir and Mr.Jyotiram Yadav, Advocate, for the Appellants Ms Alpa T. Javeri, APP, for the Respondent  State CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 17TH MARCH, 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT . This Appeal is directed against conviction of the four appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 2 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs.300/- and four years with a fine of Rs.300/- respectively imposed on the two counts. 2. Facts which are material for deciding this Appeal are as under :- Victim Sunita was married to appellant Dilip on 21st May, 1981 and had two sons aged 8 and 6 years at the time of incident which took place on 17th January, 1992. She died of drowning in a well constructed well near her house. It was alleged that for the first three years of marriage, Sunita had absolutely no problems. Thereafter, the appellants started taunting her saying that she was not as beautiful as expected and used to treat her as maid servant and was ill treated. In December, 1991, Sunita's brother Manoj had arranged naming ceremony of his son. She had been told by the in-laws to return to her 3 matrimonial home with her father. However, Sunita seems to have returned to the matrimonial home on 12th January, 1992 alone. Therefore, on 13th January, 1992, appellant Dilip is alleged to have rang up a neighbour of the parents of Sunita stating that the appellant would be coming to see them on the next day. On 14th January, 1992, appellant Dilip came to the house of his in-laws and after finding Manoj not at home went to the house of his sister, where Manoj went and saw him. Appellant Dilip is alleged to have asked Manoj as to why Sunita was not sent with her father adding that if she had been accompanied by her father, he would not have beaten his father. It seems that Sunita's father was at that time in Madras looking after his business. Then on 18th January, 1992, Sunita drowned in the well and necessary information was given to the Sunita's family. 3. On a report by Sunita's mother 4 Pramila, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. Inquest on the dead body was performed and the dead body was sent for the Post Mortem examination which did not report any injuries on the person of the victim. She was certified as having died due to drowning. No poison etc. was found in the viscera. The panchanama of the spot was also performed, statements of the witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, charge sheet was sent to the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirur. 4. The learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shirur committed the case to the Court of Sessions, where, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, to whom the case was made over, charged the appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty they were put on trial at which the prosecution 5 examined in all six witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the accused. After considering the evidence of these six witnesses and defence witness Kamlesh, the learned Judge held the appellants guilty and convicted and sentenced them as afore mentioned. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants came before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the respondent  State. With the help of both the learned Counsel I have gone through the record. P.W.1 Gopinath Bala Ichake, who witnessed the panchanama of the spot states that though the well was built in Stones and Cement, the place from where water used to be drawn was mossy and soft. He stated that even prior to the incident, two or three persons had fallen from the same place. Therefore, merely because Sunita was found to have been fallen in the well, an inference cannot be 6 drawn that Sunita had committed suicide. The possibility of her accidently falling in the well has not been ruled out. It would not be open to the prosecution to assume that Sunita had committed suicide because she had drowned in the well and therefore, to conclude that she was being subjected to ill treatment & so she had drowned in the well to end her life, since that would amount to question begging. 6. The evidence of P.W.2 Smt.Pramila Manikchand Gandhi and P.W.3 Manoj Manikchand Gandhi, mother and brother of the victim does not show that Sunita was subjected to any specific harassment or ill treatment. They have generally stated that Sunita was being ill treated. The story about ill treatment also surfaces after the incident and there is nothing to indicate that in the over ten years of married life of Sunita with appellant Dilip there was any discord. The only difference in the two families referred to by these two 7 witnesses seems to have arisen in just one month before the victim's death. Sunita left from her parental home to attend naming ceremony of son of Manoj and marriage in the family. Dilip and others are alleged to be demanding that Sunita return with her father but she returned to her matrimonial home alone. Even if all these allegations are taken as proved, by no stretch of imagination can they amount to cruelty as defined under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. There is nothing to indicate that this conduct was such as to provoke Sunita to commit suicide. 7. The learned APP refers to the evidence of Smt. Aruna Satpute, who was examined as P.W.4. She states that Sunita being given bad food and treated as a maid servant. When Sunita's own mother does not state about any bad food being served to Sunita, and all that she states is about Sunita being given more work, it is difficult to believe the account 8 of this neighbour. Even if it is taken for a while that Sunita was being given bad food and treated as maid servant, this certainly did not occur after Sunita's return to matrimonial home on 12th January, 1992 to provoke Sunita to commit suicide. Therefore, the learned Judge was thoroughly unjustified in relying on this evidence of neighbour Aruna, as also the evidence of Pramila and Manoj. 8. P.W.6 Dr.Macchindra Sonalkar conducted autopsy on the dead body of Sunita and P.W.5 Tukaram Gaud, PSI, conducted investigation. The evidence of Sunita's own son Kamlesh, who was examined in defence shows that the food which was cooked in the family was common. There would be no reason for a child witness to depose falsely. At the cost of repetition even if it is taken for a while that the victim was being given bad food and treated as maid servant that cannot amount to cruelty and cannot amount to provocation to commit 9 suicide. In view of this, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was thoroughly unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellants in the manner he did. 9. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. Conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence inflicted upon them are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the said offence. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)