1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 5 /2010 (Jaisingh Wachu Rathod vs. Sau. Suman Rathod and others ) .................................................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ..................................................................................................................................................................... CORAM : A.P.BHANGALE, J. DATED : 23rd February, 2011. Heard Mr R.J.Shinde, learned counsel for the applicant ;Mr. Adil Mirza, for Mr. R.J.Mirza, for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr B.M. Lonare, APP for respondent no. 4. By this Revision, the applicant has challenged the validity, legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order of acquittal in Sessions Trial No. 73/ 2005 decided by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Darwah on 5.5.2009 whereby the respondent-accused nos. 1 to 3 were acquitted of offence punishable under sections 306, 498A read with section 34 IPC. Briefly stated, it appears that deceased Lata w/o Kishor Jadhav had committed suicide after she had consumed insecticide and died on 20.9.2005 at 4.00 p.m. at District Hospital, Yavatmal. The death intimation was given to City Police Station, Yavatmal. On that basis accidental death, was registered. Later in the course of enquiry, inquest Panchnama in respect of dead body of Lata was done. The dead body was 2 thereafter referred to post-mortem examination. Panchnama in respect of the spot was also prepared. On 23.9.2005, the father of the deceased Lata made a written report against the respondents-accused alleging that Lata was treated well only for 15 days after her marriage was solemnised on 16.5.2005 and, thereafter, the respondent accused had demanded colour TV. It is also alleged that she was subjected to ill-treatment on the on the ground that Lata's complexion was black. It is further alleged that Lata told this fact to her father about a month before her death when she visited her parental house. Thus, it is case of the prosecution that Lata died as a result of ill-treatment and abetment of suicide by the respondent-accused. Learned Advocate who appeared for the revision-applicant contended that Lata died within four months of her marriage. Therefore, there is a statutory presumption against the accused and the learned trial Judge therefore ought to have appreciated the evidence led on record and ought to have convicted the respondents-accused on the ground that they had ill- treated Lata which led her to take the extreme step, that too within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage as presumption is raised under section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act. Section 113 (A) reads thus: “113A: Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman: When the 3 question is whether the commission of suicide by a woman had been abetted by her husband or any relative of her husband and it is shown that she had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the date of her marriage and that her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to cruelty, the Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such relative of her husband.” The presumption would arise regarding abetment of suicide provided that death of a lady by suicide occurred within seven years from the date of her marriage and further her husband or such relatives of her husband had subjected her to cruelty. Thus there is no blanket presumption as such; but it may be raised by the Court considering all other circumstances of the case. Merely because married woman committed suicide within seven years of her marriage does not therefore, ipso facto result into presumption. It is necessary in such case to lead the evidence about the circumstances of cruelty by husband or his relative/s and then only having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court may find justification to raise a statutory presumption so as to insist upon rebuttal of the same by the defense. Learned Advocate made a reference to the ruling in Gorakhnath Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2005 All MR (Cri) 1400 in order to submit that this Court had confirmed the conviction in the 4 ruling of Gorakhnath, when it was challenged. It appears that in the facts and circumstances of that case, the victim Trupti therein had visited her parents' house twice once for Nagpanchmi and later for Diwali and on both those visits she had complained to her parents and brothers of her ill-treatment at the hands of the accused in that case. When her brother questioned about harassment to her husband - the accused in that case had got annoyed and accused the witness of having an illicit relations with his own sister Trupti. Thus, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case, the conviction ordered by the trial Court was maintained. I have already observed distinguishing factor in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Merely because death of Lata had occurred within four months of her marriage would not automatically give rise to statutory presumption. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to produce material as to circumstances about the complaints of cruelty made by deceased Lata prior to her death when she had visited her parents' house. The learned Judge found the evidence of the prosecution witnesses contradictory as well as consisting of material omissions which could not have been taken into consideration. It is further observed by the trial Court that the prosecution witnesses and Investigating Officer had suppressed the fact that husband of Lata; the accused Kishor, also had consumed insecticide at the time of the incident but fortunately he survived but 5 unfortunately Lata died. Under these circumstances, making a reference to a plethora of rulings in paragraph 10 of the judgment, the learned trial Judge appears to have arrived at a conclusion after considering the entire evidence led that although death of Lata had taken place within five months of her mariage there was no sufficient evidence on record to prove the ill-treatment by the accused persons. No specific incident of complaint as to ill-treatment against the accused was brought on record. It was, therefore, difficult for the trial Judge to believe that there was demand of colour TV or that Lata was ill-treated because she was black in complexion. It is the quality of the evidence which is required to be taken into consideration and not the plurality of the witnesses. Merely because seven witnesses were examined it cannot be said that the prosecution had succeeded to bring home the guilt of the accused, particularly when the prosecution is also blamed for suppression of material facts on the ground that Kishor had also attempted to commit suicide by consuming insecticide; and contradictory testimonies. For all these reasons, acquittal of the respondent-accused by the trial Court cannot be blamed on any ground, when the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has discussed the evidence comprehensively to arrive at logical conclusion as to the acquittal of the respondent -accused. 6 I do not find any merit in the Revision. The same is dismissed. JUDGE sahare