1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 21 OF 2000 The State of Maharashtra, through P.P. High Court, .. Appellants/ Bench at Aurangabad. ori.complt. versus 01. Tukaram Pandurang Bagal, age 33 years, occup.Nil, r/of Bhambora,Tq.Karjat, District Ahmednagar. 02. Vilas Pandurang Bagal, age 38 years,occup.nil, r/of as above. 03. Pandurang Aba Bagal, age 72 years,occup.nil, r/of as above. 04. Rahibai Pandurang Bagal, age 62 years, occup.nil, r/of Bhambora, Tq.Karjat, District Ahmednagar. 05. Lankabai Vijay Randhave, age 30 years, occup.nil, r/of as above. 2 06. Savita Vilas Bagal, age 32 years, r/o as .. Respondents/ above. ori.accused ----- Shri B.V. Wagh, A.P.P. for the appellant-State. Shri N.V. Gaware Patil,Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Coram : P.R.Borkar,J. Date : 15/01/2010. ORAL JUDGMENT 01. This appeal is preferred by the State being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, on 4.2.1999 in Sessions Case No.202 of 1996, whereby Respondents were acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A both read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 02. Briefly stated, PW-1 Digambar Borate, who was father of deceased Surekha lodged complaint on 27.4.1996 (Exh.28) with Police Station, Karjat, stating that he is resident of village Jalalpur, Taluka Karjat, District Ahmednagar. PW-3 Raosaheb Borate is his son and victim Surekha was his daughter. 3 Surekha married Respondent No.1 six years prior to lodging of the complaint. Respondent No. 2 is the brother of Respondent No.1. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are parents of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 5 is the wife of Respondent No. 3 and Respondent No. 6 is sister of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is further stated that after marriage, Surekha was treated well for six months by Respondents, but thereafter for not being able to do household work properly, Respondents started mental and physical ill-treatment to her. It is further stated that whenever Surekha came to her parental house, she used to complain about ill- treatment and beating to her by Respondents. Two years prior to file of complaint, Surekha was asked by Respondents to bring Rs.10,000/- from her parents and accordingly she told about the same to her father PW-1 Digambar. In order to ensure that Surekha was not beaten and/or ill-treated by Respondents, Digambar paid the amount. It is said that at about same time, Respondent No. 5 Lankabai attempted to push Surekha into a well. It is stated that at the time of Diwali prior to filing of complaint, Surekha had told her father that there was again demand by Respondents for money. She repeated said demand on the eve of Makar Sankrant. About 15 days before lodging complaint, PW-1 4 went to Bhambora to bring Surekha to Jalalpur for fair, but the Respondents did not send her. At that time she complained to her father that she was beaten by Respondents. On 25.4.1996 at about 5.30 p.m. i.e. just on earlier day of the incident, PW-3 Raosaheb had gone to the weekly marked at village Bhambora and he handed over two blouses to Respondent No.3-Pandurang for Surekha. Thereafter, PW-3 also met Respondent No. 1 Tukaram who demanded Rs.25,000/= for construction of house. PW-3 Raosaheb communicated this demand to his father PW-1 Digambar. On next day i.e. 26.4.1996, Respondent No.2 Vilas gave message that Surekha committed suicide by jumping into a well. Thereafter PW-1 Digambar went to Rashin Police Station and informed them about the incident and then he went to the well at village Bhambora at about 9.00 p.m. and noticed that dead bodies of two girls were floating in the well. At that time he questioned Respondent No.2- Vilas as to how the incident had taken place and Vilas told that at about 10.00 a.m. Surekha and her two daughters had gone to the land, but did not return and then dead bodies of Surekha and her daughters were found in the well. It is further stated in the complaint that when the dead bodies were taken out of the well on 27.4.1996 there were no injuries on the 5 dead bodies. However, it is said that due to ill- treatment, Surekha committed suicide. In last paragraph of the complaint, it is mentioned that for construction of house, Rs.45,000/- were demanded by the Respondents. 03. The prosecution, in all, examined five witnesses. PW-1 Digambar, PW-3 Raosaheb and PW-4 Devidas respectively were father, brother and maternal uncle of deceased Surekha. So far as death of Surekha is concerned, from the attending circumstances, it is clear that it must be a suicide. The trial court has discussed this aspect in paragraphs 11 to 13 of its judgment and noted that around the well in question, there was parapet wall and as such there was no possibility of accidental fall. Moreover, not only Surekha alone committed suicide, but she committed suicide along with two daughters. In an accidental fall, it was not possible that Surekha would fall in the well with two daughters. Considering the circumstances discussed by the learned trial judge, I agree with him that Surekha must have jumped into well along with her two daughters. 6 04. The death has also occurred within seven years of the marriage and, therefore, if offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. is proved, as per Section 113-A of the Evidence Act, presumption could be drawn against Respondents regarding abatement of suicide. However, the trial court came to a conclusion that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the offence under Section 498-A of I.P.C. Only oral evidence of three interested witnesses is on record. There is no independent evidence. Moreover, the trial court analyzed the evidence of three witnesses and came to a conclusion that there is no consistency in the evidence and so this is a case wherein benefit of doubt should given to the accused. 05. Learned A.P.P. Shri Wagh for the appellant- State vehemently argued that ordinarily Surekha had no reason to commit suicide along with two daughters, if she was happy with Respondents and if there was no cruelty as alleged. He submitted that so far as demands are concerned, only close relatives could speak about it and stranger may not know about the same. He submitted that if ill-treatment was there, it was within four walls of the house and as such no independent evidence can be expected to prove the 7 same. 06. PW-1 Digambar mainly spoke in terms of his complaint. He deposed that three years after the marriage, Respondent No.5 Lankabai had tried to push his daughter Surekha into the well and Surekha told him about the same when she had come to village Jalalpur for festival. At that time, Rs.10,000/= were paid by PW-1 to his daughter in compliance of demand of the Respondents and then the Respondents started treating her well. According to PW-1 Digambar, 15 days prior to the incident, he had gone to the house of Respondents to bring Surekha with him, but the Respondents refused to send her. At that time she complained to father about ill-treatment to her by Respondents. She said that she had no blouse and he should send the same. 07. It is submitted by Shri N.V.Gaware, learned Advocate for Respondents that the documents produced by the Respondents along with lists Exhibits 24 and 26 clearly indicate that Respondent No.2 Vilas was residing separately with his wife and children. He has produced ration card to that effect. Other 8 documents on record indicate that there was sufficient income from the agricultural land of respondents - accused and therefore demand of money on their part is not probable. The documents are of sale of grain and other agricultural produce in the agricultural marketing committee. The documents show that there was enough income to the Respondents- accused and thus there was no reason for them to make demand of money from parents of Surekha as alleged. 08. It is further stated by PW-1 Surekha that on earlier day of the incident, he had sent blouse for Surekha with his son PW-3 Raosaheb who handed over the same to Respondent No.3-Pandurang. At that time, Respondent No.1-Tukaram demanded Rs.10,000/- from Raosaheb. 09. If we consider the evidence of PW-3 Raosaheb, his case is that two years after the marriage of Surekha, Respondents started demanding Rs. 10,000/= from her for construction of house. He further deposed that when Surekha had come to her parents' house for Diwali, she disclosed that she was being ill-treated by Respondents for not paying them 9 Rs.10,000/=. Therefore, in order to avoid any ill- treatment to Surekha, her parents gave Rs.10,000/= to Surekha for paying the same to the Respondents. According to PW-3 Raosaheb, six months thereafter, his father had gone to the in laws of Surekha to bring her to his house, but she was not sent. At that time she asked her father to send blouse for her. On 26.4.1996 a day prior to the incident Respondent No.3 Pandurang was handed over blouse by PW-3 Raosaheb in the market at Bhambora. When PW-3 Raosaheb met Respondent No.3 Pandurang at Bhambora, he also requested Pandurang not to ill-treat his sister. Thereafter Respondent No.1 Tukaram met him in the market and demanded Rs.25,000/- for construction of house. 10. Considering inconsistencies in the evidence of PW-1 Digambar and PW-3 Raosaheb (father and brother of deceased Surekha), it is difficult to believe their evidence. In the cross examination of PW-1 it is brought on record that he had not stated before the police that fifteen days prior to the incident he had gone to the house of in laws of his daughter when she is said to have told him that she had no blouse. 10 11. PW-3 Raosaheb did not state anything regarding other incident that is narrated by his father, such as, Respondent No.5 Lankabai had once pushed Surekha into the well. As per evidence of PW-3 Raosaheb, the demand prior to the incident was for Rs. 25,000/= whereas, evidence of PW-1 Digambar and his complaint show that the demand was for Rs.10,000/=. 12. Evidence of PW-1 Digambar and PW-3 Raosaheb is supported by PW-4 Devidas, who was the maternal uncle of deceased Surekha. All that he has stated is that for first six months Surekha was treated well and whenever he went to the house of PW-1 Digambar, Surekha was complaining him about unlawful demand and ill-treatment to her by the Respondents-accused. 13. In my considered view, after going through the judgment of the trial court wherein entire evidence is assessed and appreciated, it is abundantly clear that the evidence is of shaky nature and does not inspire confidence. Possibility of filing false complaint against the Respondents because of sudden death of Surekha and her two daughters, cannot be ruled out. The view taken by the trial court cannot be said to be perverse, unreasonable or improper. By 11 now, it is well settled that when two views are possible, the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal should not reverse the finding of acquittal. 14. In the result, appeal fails and the same is accordingly, dismissed. pnd/criapl46. (P.R.BORKAR, J.) 12