1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.276 OF 1997. 1. Vilas @ Popat S/o Raghunath Mate, Age 25 years, Occ.Agril., R/o Wagholi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. 2. Rukminibai W/o Raghunath Mate, Age 50 years, Occ.Household, R/o Wagholi, Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ... Appellants. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mrs.M.A.Kulkarni, advocate for the appellants. Mr.K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 24.08.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Taking exception to judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No.21/1995, whereby both the appellants have been convicted for offences 2 punishable U/s 498-A and U/s 306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C., and have been convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) each, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one (1) month on the first count and rigorous imprisonment for five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) months on the second count, this appeal is preferred by the original accused Nos.1 and 2. 2. Indisputably, marriage between deceased Kausalya and the appellant No.1 was performed before about four (4) years of the alleged incident. The appellant No.2 is the mother of the appellant No.1. The parents of deceased Kausalya and both the appellants are inhabitants of same village i.e. Wagholi. It is an admitted fact that deceased Kausalya had given birth to two sons by name Vishal and Sheetal. 3. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that after the marriage, deceased Kausalya 3 was properly treated for initial period of about three (3) years. The appellants started giving her trouble and ill-treatment after the initial period of three (3) years. They use to assault her. They use to keep her starved. They wanted gift articles to be presented in their honour by her parents. On account of their failure to meet out such unlawful demand, she was being subjected to matrimonial cruelty in the matrimonial home. She was unable to bear with the matrimonial cruelty and, therefore, consumed an insecticide called "Endosulfan", while she was in cattle shed in the morning of September 18, 1995. The Police Patil of the village gave report about death of said Kausalya. Initially, a case of accidental death No.25/1994 was registered. An inquest panchanama and the spot panchanama were drawn. Father of deceased Kausalya lodged FIR (Exh.22) alleging that she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty and had committed the suicide by consuming the poisonous insecticide. Consequently, the Police registered an offence and carried out certain investigation. On the basis of material gathered during the 4 investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the offences punishable U/s 498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and U/s 306 of the I.P.Code. 4. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all six (6) witnesses in support of its case. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the case of prosecution and held that the offences were duly proved against them. Hence, both the appellants were convicted and sentenced as described hereinabove. 5. Heard learned counsel and A.P.P. I have gone through the impugned judgment and the record and proceedings. 6. There is no dispute about the fact that deceased Kausalya died as a result of poisoning. The post mortem notes (Exh.18) and the opinion of the Medical Officer (Exh.19) go to show that she had consumed fatal dose of the insecticide called "Endosulfan". The spot panchanama (Exh.26) is duly corroborated by P.W.2 Uttareshwar, who acted 5 as a panch at the relevant time. His version purports to show that on 18.9.1994, the Police visited the cattle shed of the appellants. It was noticed that a canister of Endosulfan insecticide was lying at the place. A canister was seized under the same panchanama. The inquest panchanama (Exh.17) reveals that dead body of Kausalya was found lying at a short distance from the place of the incident i.e. near the cattle shed. The Police and Panchas noticed that some liquid/froth was emanating from her mouth. There were no marks of violence on her person. The incident occurred in the early morning while deceased Kausalya was near the cattle shed in the agricultural land of the appellants. It is highly improbable that she would have consumed the insecticide by mistake. It is obvious that she committed suicide by consuming the fatal dose of the insecticide. 7. The material question is whether it is duly proved that Kausalya was subjected to matrimonial cruelty within the meaning of Section 498-A of the I.P.Code. For this purpose, the 6 prosecution sought to rely on versions of P.W.1 Raosaheb, P.W.2 Sojarbai and P.W.3 Shahaji. The first two witnesses are parents of deceased Kausalya. The testimony of P.W. Raosaheb reveals that the ill-treatment started after three (3) years of the marriage. He did not specify the instances of any kind of particular ill- treatment. His statement appears to be omnibus. He deposed that Kausalya was ill-treated by the appellants because of non-payment of things. What kind of unlawful demand was being made by the appellants or either of them, is not explicit from his version. He states that the appellants were assaulting and abusing her. He further deposed that they were not providing her meals. He vaguely states that deceased Kausalya had disclosed to him about such ill-treatment during her visit to his house. According to him, she had visited his house at the time of Panchami. Taking a pause here, it may be pointed out that in the FIR (Exh.22) itself, it has been alleged that the matrimonial cruelty had commenced from festival of Panchami onwards. Thus, it is improbable that during her visit on occasion of 7 the Panchami festival, Kausalya might have ventilated any grievance about ill-treatment at the hands of the appellants. The recitals of FIR go to show that there are general allegations regarding ill-treatment given to Kausalya as she had not been able to provide gift articles likewise the other married woman. If the statement in the FIR is to be accepted then the period of alleged matrimonial cruelty was only of about 2/3 months because the festival of Nagpanchami falls in the month of July and the incident occurred in the midst of September 1994. It is not explained as to why after a period of three (3) years, the appellants suddenly changed the attitude towards deceased Kausalya. No particular instances are stated by P.W. Raosaheb in the context of the alleged matrimonial cruelty. He admits that Kausalya was known to the appellants as they are inhabitants of the same village. He admits that the appellants requested for the alliance with Kausalya because she was a beautiful woman. He admits that the appellants expressed that they did not expect anything else but only urged to give Kausalya in 8 the marriage to the appellant No.1. He admits that due to such request of the appellants, he agreed to perform marriage of Kausalya with the appellant No.1. These admissions of P.W. Raosaheb would indicate that the appellants are not the greedy persons. They did not demand any dowry or gift articles from him. 8. Coming to the version of P.W. Sojarbai, it may be gathered that she too gave vague statement regarding the alleged matrimonial cruelty. She did not give any particular instance of the alleged cruel treatment meted out to deceased Kausalya at the hands of the appellants. Her version does not show that in the earlier night there was a quarrel between deceased Kausalya and the appellants. The recitals of the FIR (Exh.22) go to show that P.W.Raosaheb was informed by P.W. Sojarbai that Kausalya was starved since about couple of days and there was quarrel between her and the appellants in the early night. What P.W. Sojarbai states in this behalf is that about couple of days prior to incident Kausalya visited 9 her house and obtained one Chapati from her. She admits that when she gave a Chapati, Kausalya left her house with younger son and then she had not disclosed to her that she was having empty stomach nor she had visited her house in connection with any ill-treatment as such. Her Police statement reveals that Kausalya visited her house to handover the minor son for some time to look after him. It is amply clear that about couple of days before the incident, Kausalya did not disclose to her mother that she was subjected to starvation or was being ill treated by the appellants. There is no substance in the allegation stated in the FIR (Exh.22) that Kausalya was starved since about couple of days before the incident. For, recitals of the post- mortem notes revealed that semi digested food was found in her stomach and digested food was found in the small intestine. This fact gives a serious jolt to the allegations about her starvation. 9. The testimony of P.W. Shahaji, is not of much significance. He is cousin of P.W. 10 Raosaheb. He deposed that Kausalya was being ill treated at the hands of the appellants. He did not specify any particular instance as such. According to him, at the time of Panchami festival, Kausalya had been to the house of her parents and then she disclosed them about the ill-treatment meted out to her at hands of the appellants. He stated that he had heard while she was narrating such kind of ill-treatment to her parents. Neither of the parents, however, confirmed the fact that P.W. Shahaji was present when Kausalya had visited their house on the eve of Nagpanchami festival. Further more, the testimony of Shahaji is quite vague and omnibus in so far as the allegations of matrimonial cruelty are concerned. 10. It is not necessary to elaborately consider the remaining evidence adduced by the prosecution. P.W.Mahadeo is the village Police Patil, who gave report about the death of Kausalya. P.W.6 Vijay was then attached to Osmanabad Rural Police Station and carried out the investigation. The prosecution did not 11 examine any one from the neighbourhood of the appellants. Needless to say, the versions of P.W. Raosaheb, P.W. Sojarbai and P.W. Shahaji are insuffcient to make out a definite case regarding the alleged matrimonial cruelty. Their versions are not up to the mark and do not sufficiently prove the charges. The learned Sessions Judge committed error while accepting such vague and omnibus statements of the close relatives of deceased Kausalya. It is also not proved that she committed suicide as a result of the matrimonial cruelty. 11. For the reasons aforestated, I am inclined to hold that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is unsustainable. Both the appellants deserve benefit of reasonable doubt in the circumstances of the present case. Hence, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the offences punishable U/s 498-A read with Section 34 and U/s 306 of the I.P.C. Their bail bonds be deemed as 12 cancelled. The fine amount be refunded to them. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crappeal27697