1 Cri.Appeal No.35/1999 fmp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.35 OF 1999 Vijay s/o Rama Lokhande, Age 42 years, Occ. Labour, R/o Gautamnagar, Latur, Taluka and District Latur. ... APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through Police Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Shivaji Nagar, Latur, (Copy to be served on Public Prosecutor, High Court of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri H.V. Patil, Advocate for the appellant Shri G.R. Ingole, A.P.P. for the respondent ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 11th October, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order convicting the appellant/ accused of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentencing him to suffer R.I. for five years and one year on 2 Cri.Appeal No.35/1999 fmp respective counts and to pay total fine of Rs.1500/- and in default to suffer further R.I. for six and two months on respective counts in Sessions Case No.124/1997, passed by Extra Joint Sessions Judge, Latur on 30.12.1998. 2. One Savita, wife of the appellant/ accused and mother of three children, committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person and setting herself on fire and, thereafter, jumping in a pond of water collected in a quarry on 15.2.1997. Her sister Sumanbai Prakash Hinge informed the police about the commission of the suicide. However, she expressed no doubt on anybody as the person responsible for the suicide committed by Savita. The police registered A.D.R. No.3/1997 at Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur and embarked on investigation. In course of the said investigation, brother of the deceased Savita, Keshav Namdeo Mhaske, made allegations against the appellant/ accused, and on the basis of his statement, a crime under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at C.R. No.22/1997 against the appellant/ accused at Shivajinagar Police Station, Latur on 16.2.1997. 3. The complainant Keshavrao Mhaske made a grievance that the appellant/ accused used to quarrel everyday with the 3 Cri.Appeal No.35/1999 fmp deceased Savita under the influence of liquor and demand money without doing any work; and on 15.2.1997, his sister Savita had committed suicide by self immolation as a result of she getting fed up of the harassment at the hands of her husband. The police recorded the statements of the witnesses. Inquest was held on the body of deceased Savita and her mortal remains were examined. On completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was duly lodged against the appellant/ accused. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and charge under Sections 498-A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Exhibit 3) was duly framed against the appellant/ accused on 24.8.1998. The appellant/ accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 4. The prosecution examined P.W.1 Keshav Mhaske, the complainant; P.W.2 Prakash Inge; P.W.3 Parvatibai Tenkale; P.W.4 Pandhari Mane; P.W.5 Amarsing Gurkha; P.W.6 Lumabai Mane and P.W.7 Jalinder Naiknavare, investigating officer. The accused did not dispute the fact of his marriage with the deceased Savita and she dying of burn injuries on 15.2.1997. However, he revealed that he was falsely implicated in the present case vide statement Exhibit 4. 4 Cri.Appeal No.35/1999 fmp 5. Learned trial Court found no reason to disbelieve the complainant and other two witnesses and held that the accused was ill-treating and beating Savita under the influence of liquor, which had driven Savita to commit suicide. Learned trial Court, thus, found the appellant/ accused guilty of the crime alleged. 6. Mr. H.V. Patil, learned Advocate for the appellant/ accused submitted that, except vague allegations of cruelty there was nothing in the evidence to prompt a finding that the victim Savita had committed suicide on the instigation of the appellant/ accused. He pointed out to the statement of Sumanbai Hinge (Exhibit 25), on the basis of which the A.D.R. was registered, and submitted that, Sumanbai had not expressed any doubt about the suicide committed by her sister Savita and, therefore, there was a reason to believe, that there were many things other than the instigation at the hands of the accused for commission of the suicide by Savita. 7. Mr. G.R. Ingole, learned A.P.P. for the State submitted that the learned trial Court was right in holding the appellant/ accused guilty of the crime on the basis of the evidence of the complainant and two others regarding everyday harassment of the deceased at the hands of the appellant/ accused. 5 Cri.Appeal No.35/1999 fmp 8. Evidence of P.W.1 Keshav Mhaske, P.W.2 Prakash Inge and P.W.3 Parvatibai Tenkale – husband, brother-in-law and sister of the deceased Savita respectively, reveal a common allegation that, accused used to consume liquor and quarrel with Savita and beat her everyday. Cross-examination of P.W.1 Keshav Mhaske reveals that, P.W.1 Keshav Mhaske had made vague allegations without any material to support such allegations. He deposed that, on 2 to 3 occasions complaints were lodged against the accused, but the same were not recorded and there was no move or grievance made to the office of Superintendent of Police against the reluctance of the police to record the complaint. Though he revealed in his cross-examination that he could learn the facts about the accused demanding money from Savita for consuming liquor and there were quarrels on that count, none of the local residents lend any support to the testimony of P.W.1 Keshav Mhaske. P.W.2 Prakash Inge, incidentally husband of Sumanbai, in his cross-examination, revealed that, he had occasion to see the accused quarrelling with Savita under influence of drink but had not seen accused beating Savita. If this was the fact, it could have been easily reflected in the statement of Sumanbai (Exhibit 25) which made no accusations against the appellant/ accused. P.W.3 Parvatibai Tenkale deposed that Savita 6 Cri.Appeal No.35/1999 fmp used to tell her about the everyday harassment at the hands of the accused. P.W.3 Parvatibai Tenkale is the sister of Savita and naturally, this fact would not have remained secret from her another sister Sumanbai, who had not expressed any doubt about the demise of Savita. 9. So far as the other witnesses are concerned, they refused to support the prosecution. Evidence thus fails to show what had immediately prompted the deceased Savita to commit suicide. If one looks at the charge (Exhibit 3), it merely accuses the appellant/ accused of the act of cruelty committed on 15.2.1997, for which there is no credible evidence. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal needs to be allowed. 10. The appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and the appellant/ accused is ordered to be released from the prison forthwith unless required in any other case. Fine amount, if paid, be refunded to him. ( U.D. SALVI, J. )