( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 153 OF 1998 Mahadeo s/o. Shrimant Hipparge .. Appellant Age. 32 years, Occ. Agri., [original R/o. Phulwadi, Tq. Tuljapur, accused No.2] Dist. Osmanabad. Versus The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent Through Vithal Basappa Rajamane, [original Age. 50 years, Occ. Agri., complainant] R/o. Gotewadi, Tal. Mohol, Dist. Solapur. Mr. A.S. Kadam, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. B.J. Sonawane, A.P.P. for respondent/State. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR,J. DATED : 08.12.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad, in Sessions Case No. 32 of 1996. By that judgment, the crap153.98 ( 2 ) appellant, who was original accused No.2, came to be convicted for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprison for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The appellant along with his parents and other relatives were jointly tried for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined in all four witnesses in support of its case. On basis of material produced by the prosecution account, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant and other co-accused, in furtherence of their common intention, abetted commission of suicide of deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai. The learned Sessions Judge further held that the prosecution did not prove contribution of other co-accused in causing matrimonial cruelty to deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai, but the appellant alone was responsible for causing the matrimonial cruelty to her. Consequently, he was convicted and sentenced as stated at the crap153.98 ( 3 ) outset. 3. Heard learned advocate for the appellant and learned A.P.P. 4. The clinching question involved is, whether the appellant subjected deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai, his wife, to matrimonial cruelty on account of her failure to fulfill certain unlawful demands and particularly the demand for 1 tola (10 grams) of gold. 5. At the threshold it may be mentioned that the death of Parvatibai alias Rahibai is not proved to be suicidal. The spot panchanama (Exh.24) purports to show that the well in which dead body of Parvatibai alias Rahibai was found is surrounded by wall of stones, except from Eastern side. The panchanama shows that from Eastern side there is a way to enter into the well. There were clothes and bucket found near the well. The walls of the well were found to be smeared with small fungus. It is obvious that there was probability of falling of deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai crap153.98 ( 4 ) in the well due to accidental reasons. She might have gone to the well for washing of the clothes and not for committing suicide by plunging herself in the well. The post mortem notes (Exh.26) go to show that no external injury was found on her person. It is further explicit that she died due to dawning in the water. There is no eye witness account about the alleged suicide committed by Parvatibai alias Rahibai. 6. Now coming to the version of P.W.1 - Vithal and P.W. 2 – Rukminbai, it is amply clear that they gave omnibus statements regarding the nature of matrimonial cruelty meted out to deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai. The marriage between deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai was performed in 1990. It appears that general statements are made by these witnesses to the effect that Parvatibai alias Rahibai had narrated to them about matrimonial cruelty. 7. The learned Sessions Judge appears to be much influenced by recitals of a letter (Exh.29). It is true that in the said letter deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai was asked to return along with one tola (10 grams) of gold or crap153.98 ( 5 ) otherwise not to return to the matrimonial house. Firstly, the authorship of the letter is not admitted by the appellant nor is duly proved. Secondly, the said letter is dated 17.08.1990 i.e. about 5 years prior to the alleged incident of death of Parvatibai alias Rahibai. It has come on record that during the ceremony of Dohale-Jevan the parents of Parvatibai alias Rahibai had given gold and new clothes to the appellant and his relatives. It was, thereafter, that she was taken back to the matrimonial house. She had delivered a child in the house of the parents. Thus, at the time of her death, she had an infant child. It is difficult to believe that such a married woman who was blissed with a child, would commit suicide. An attempt was made to show that the illtreatment was given to her on account of illicit relation between appellant and one lady teacher and for the reason that Parvatibai alias Rahibai had objected to such relationship. This story seems to have been developed during the course of the Trial. The allegations in this context are rather of general character. 8. The statement of P.W.3-Bharat does not show crap153.98 ( 6 ) anything about the complaint of deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai regarding illtreatment given to her on account of disapproval of illicit relation between the appellant and the lady school teacher. This witness is son-in-law of P.W.1 & 2. His version does not spell out any specific illtreatment given to deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai by the appellant. 9. All said and done, it will have to be gathered that there are only three interested versions of the parents and brother-in-law of deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai, in the context of alleged matrimonial cruelty. No independent witness was examined. No one from the brotherhood of the appellant came forward to corroborate story of prosecution regarding any specific nature of cruelty caused to deceased Parvatibai alias Rahibai at hands of the appellant. The inland letter (Exh.29) has no nexus with the so called unlawful demand which was made in 1990, because the incident occurred in 1995 and there was no proximity of such demand with the death of Parvatibai alias Rahibai. 10. In the result, the impugned judgment is crap153.98 ( 7 ) unsustainable. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Fine amount, if has been deposited, be refunded to him. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/DEC10/crap153.98 crap153.98