[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.625 OF 1993 1. Baban Ganpat Dangat ] 2. Smt.Tarabai Narayan ] Dangat, ] Both residents of 10/15] Sahyadrinagar, ] Kandivli West, ] Bombay-400 067 ]..Appellants [Ori.Accused Nos.1 and 2] Vs. The State of Maharashtra ]..Respondent .... Mr.B.R.Patil Advocate for Appellant No.2 Appeal abates qua Appellant no.1. Mr.V.B.Konde-Deshmukh APP for State .... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : JANUARY 27, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 27, 2009 DATE : JANUARY 27, 2009 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The appellants-original accused nos.1 and 2 have challenged judgment and order dated 29.10.1993 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1988. By the said judgment and order, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted both the accused persons [-2-] under sections 498-A r.w. 34 of IPC and Section 306 r.w. 34 of IPC. For the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the appellant no.1 came to be sentenced to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for three months. For the offence under Section 306 r.w. 34 of IPC, the appellant no.1 came to be sentenced to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for 3 months. For the offence under Section 498-A of IPC, the appellant no.2 came to be sentenced to R.I. for one and half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for three months. For the offence under Section 306 r.w. 34 of IPC, the appellant no.2 came to be sentenced to R.I. for one and half year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default R.I. for 3 months. Substantive sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. 2. The learned advocate for the appellants has submitted that appellant no.1 has expired during the pendency of this appeal. Copy of death certificate is handed over which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. As far as appellant no.1-Baban @ Govind Dangat is concerned, [-3-] this appeal abates. Thus, this appeal is being considered only in respect of appellant no.2-Tarabai Dangat. 3. The prosecution case briefly stated is as under: . Deceased Mangal was daughter of PW 2 Sitaram and PW 2 Dhondabai. Marriage of Mangal with original accused no.1 Baban took place about 9 to 10 months prior to the incident. Prior to the marriage, Mangal knew accused no.1 and his family. Appellant Tarabai was the wife of brother of appellant no.1. They were all residing jointly in a building almost opposite the house of Sitaram and Dhondabai. It is further the prosecution case that Mangal was illtreated by her husband Baban, Tarabai and other persons in the house, hence, she set herself on fire on 10.2.1987 between 3.00 p.m. to 4.45 p.m. PW 3 Asha saw smoke coming out of the house of Mangal. Hence, she went to the house of Mangal. She found that the door was locked from inside. Hence, she called the police. The door was broken open. In the outer room some writing in chalk was found on the floor. It was written that her [-4-] husband used to beat her every day and the wife of her husband’s brother used to harass her and every one used to speak to her in a taunting manner. Hence, she set herself on fire. Mangal was found in a burning condition in the inner room of the house. They poured few buckets of water on her and extinguished the fire. Thereafter, Mangal was taken to hospital. Mangal was not in a position to speak. She died soon thereafter. FIR was not lodged by father or mother of Mangal or any relative hence, it came to be lodged by PW 6 PSI Jadhav. After lodging of FIR, investigation commenced. In due course, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 4. Charge came to be framed against both the accused persons under Sections 498-A and under Section 306 r.w. 34 of IPC. Accused pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried. After going through the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Judge convicted and sentenced both the accused as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal. 5. I have heard the learned advocate for the [-5-] appellant no.2-original accused no.2 and the learned APP for Respondent-State. I have perused the impugned judgment and order as well as the record pertaining to the present case. 6. In order to prove its case, prosecution has examined six witnesses. PW 1 Dhondabai is the mother of Mangal, PW 2 Sitaram is the father of Mangal. PW 3 Asha was neighbour of Mangal. PW 4 Ramesh Nalawade is panch witness. PW 5 Subhash is the Doctor and PW 6 Sharad is the Investigating Officer. 7. PW 3 Asha who was a neighbour of Mangal, has stated that she saw smoke coming out of the house of Mangal, hence, she went to the house of Mangal. She found that the door was locked from inside. Hence, she called the police. The door was broken open. In the outer room some writing in chalk was found on the floor. It was written that her husband used to beat her every day and the wife of her husband’s brother used to harass her and every one used to speak to her in a taunting manner. Hence, she set herself on fire. Mangal was found in a burning condition in the inner room of the [-6-] house. They poured buckets of water on her and extinguished the fire. Mangal was not in a position to speak. This witness has not stated anything about any illtreatment or harassment by any of the accused persons to Mangal. She has further stated that she has seen something written on the floor, however, she did not read what was written on the floor. Thus the evidence of this witness only establishes that Mangal was found alone in a burning condition in her matrimonial home. The evidence of this witness does not establish that the appellant treated Mangal with cruelty, due to which Mangal committed suicide. Hence, evidence of this witness is of no help to the prosecution. 8. PW 2 Sitaram who is father of Mangal has stated that Mangal used to meet him occasionally after her marriage. She used to tell that accused persons used to quarrel with her and he pacified her and she was sent back. As far as this witness is concerned, he has not stated when Mangal had informed him about these facts nor is there any material to show the nature of quarrels, no details have been furnished by this witness. Thus, it is [-7-] seen that he has only made a general and vague statement against the accused persons. The last witness relied upon by the prosecution is PW 1 Dhondabai. Dhondabai is the mother of Mangal. Dhondabai has stated that Mangal told her that accused were illtreating her and harassing her. However, no details have been given by her about the nature of illtreatment and harassment. It is pertinent to note that this witness has categorically stated that when Mangal used to meet her, Mangal told her that though there were quarrels, everything was normal. The evidence of Sitaram and Dhondabai does not show any such cruelty being meted out to Mangal by the appellant so as to compel Mangal to commit suicide. Thus, this evidence does not help the prosecution case. 9. As far as writing on the floor is concerned, PW 1 Dhondabai has stated that when she was informed about the incident she rushed to the house of Mangal. She saw that Mangal was lying in a burnt condition on the floor and water was spread over in the room. She saw something written on the floor, however, she did not note the contents of that writing. Though Dhondabai had rushed to the house [-8-] of Mangal, she has not stated the contents of the writing on the floor. Sitaram has not uttered a word about any writing on the floor. 10. Even taking the prosecution case at its best, it is seen that there was no demand of money or any other kind made by any of the accused persons to Mangal or her parents or anyone else. It is an admitted fact that both the accused persons were not present in the house at the time of the incident. No details have been furnished by any witness regarding nature of illtreatment or harassment. On the other hand, PW 1 Dhondabai has stated that Mangal had informed her that though there were quarrels everything was normal. No witness has stated about the nature of quarrels or reason for the quarrels, whether the quarrels took place on account of fault on the part of Mangal or they took place because accused persons were being unreasonable, has not been brought on record. However, the prosecution has placed reliance on the writing which was found on the floor of the house. As far as this writing is concerned, PW 1 Dhondabai, PW 2 Sitaram and PW 3 Asha have not stated contents of the writing on the floor. In [-9-] order to substantiate its case that Mangal had scribbled dying declaration in chalk on the floor, the prosecution has placed reliance on the evidence of PW 4 Ramesh who is a panch witness. However, it has come on record that the matrimonial house of Mangal consisted of only two small rooms. Mangal had set herself on fire in the inner room of the house and the writing was in the outer room. In order to extinguish the fire, witnesses had thrown buckets of water on Mangal. There was no "Umbartha" i.e. threshold between the inner and outer rooms. Due to this, water would spread into the front room. Moreover, many persons had gone into inner room where Mangal was lying. As they were rushing into the house and out of the house many persons would have stepped on the writing on the floor which would have led to the writing being obliterated. PW 4 Ramesh has admitted that 4 to 5 buckets of water was thrown in inner room i.e. kitchen and thus, the water was likely to spread over in the outer room i.e. hall. It is pertinent to note that PW 4 Ramesh has admitted that it is possible that some words were wiped out as many persons had gone in and come out of the room. In view of the evidence of these witnesses, some doubt [-10-] arises in the mind about the legibility of the writing on the floor. Even assuming that it was so written by Mangal, the said writing is vague and general in nature. In the said writing, role is also attributed to other family members where it is stated that all used to speak to her in taunting manner. In any event, even taking the prosecution case as it is into consideration, the main role is attributed to original accused no.1 i.e. husband of Mangal that he is supposed to have beaten Mangal every day. No such role of physical violence or assault has been attributed to appellant no.2. It is not the prosecution case that there was any demand by any of the accused persons. The reason for quarrel has not come on record. It is not known whether there was any mistake on the part of Mangal in carrying out her household duties due to which there were quarrels. Nothing has come on record that there was wilful conduct on the part of appellant no.2 which was of such a nature so as to be likely to drive Mangal to commit suicide. As stated earlier, prosecution case is that the husband of Mangal i.e. appellant no.1 used to beat her every day. Looking to the evidence on record, I do not find any cogent or reliable material on [-11-] record to show that appellant no.2 treated Mangal with any such cruelty so as to cause Mangal to commit suicide. Hence, I am inclined to grant benefit of doubt to appellant no.2. 11. In the result, the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 29.10.1993 imposed on the appellant no.2-Smt.Tarabai Narayan Dangat under Sections 498-A and 306 r.w. Section 34 of IPC by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay in Sessions Case No. 37 of 1988, is set aside. The appellant no.2 is acquitted thereunder. Her bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 12. Appeal is allowed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]