1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.327 OF 1997. Haribhau S/o Shrirang Suryawanshi, Age 32 years, Occ.Agriculture, R/o Shirsala, Tq. Majalgaon, Dist. Beed. ... Appellant. Versus The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent. ... Mr.S.K.Chavan, advocate holding for Mr.V.D.Salunke, advocate for the appellant. Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, A.P.P. for the State. ... CORAM : V.R.KINGAONKAR,J. Date : 29.09.2009. ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Challenge in this appeal is to judgment rendered by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Beed, in Sessions Case No.138 of 1995, whereby the appellant came to be convicted for 2 offences punishable U/ss 498-A and 306 of the I.P.Code. He has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three (3) years and to pay fine of Rs.400/- (Rupees four hundred), in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for the offence punishable U/s 306 of the I.P.Code and suffer rigorous imprisonment for two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.100/- (Rupees hundred only), in default rigorous imprisonment for two (2) months for the offence punishable U/s 498-A of the I.P.Code. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant and deceased Godavaribai were married before about six (6) years of her death. She was residing with the appellant and his parents after the marriage. About three (3) years after the marriage, the appellant and his parents started giving her cruel treatment on account of her failure to fulfill unlawful demand for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and a gold ring of 5 grams. The appellant used to beat her due to non-fulfillment of the demand. There was a marriage ceremony on 15.5.1995 of her brother, 3 namely, P.W. Ramesh. The appellant refused to attend the marriage on the ground that he was not paid Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and the demand for gold ring was also not fulfilled. The appellant, however, sent Godavari to attend the marriage. On 15.5.1995, yet another marriage of her cousin was scheduled. The appellant went to house of brother of the wife (Godavaribai) in the evening of 14.5.1995. He stayed with her brothers. On next day, he did not allow Godavaribai to attend marriage of her cousin. He did not allow her to take meals at house of her brothers. He too, did not take meals at their house He thereafter, took Godavaribai with him in the noon of 16.5.1995. She consumed some poisonous substance shortly after reaching house of the appellant. He took her to the Hospital. He was advised to take her to the SRTR Government College and Medical Hospital at Ambejogai because she had consumed fatal dose of poisonous insecticide. He got engaged a jeep vehicle and took her to the Medical College Hospital. On the way, she died. The Medical Officer declared her to be dead when she was reached to the Hospital. 4 Her elder brother viz; P.W.1 Vasant lodged FIR in the same evening. On the basis of said FIR, offence was registered against the appellant and his parents. The Police carried out certain investigation. He and his parents were charge- sheeted for the offences punishable U/ss 498-A and 306 of the I.P.Code. 3. At the trial, the prosecution examined in all nine (9) witnesses. The learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that death of Godavaribai was of suicidal nature and the appellant subjected her to matrimonial cruelty which instigated her to commit the suicide. The learned Sessions Judge, however, held that parents of the appellant were not at fault. Both of them were acquitted from the charges, whereas the appellant came to be convicted and sentenced as described hereinabove. 4. Heard learned counsel and learned A.P.P. I have gone through the record and proceedings with their help. 5 5. Before I proceed to embark upon scrutiny of the prosecution evidence, a few admitted facts may be stated. The fact that deceased Godavaribai committed suicide after consumption of some poisonous insecticide is uncontroverted. The appellant did not challenge nature of her death nor this fact is disputed before me. In his statement U/s 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant admitted that Godavaribai died as a result of consumption of poisonous substance/drug. His explanation is that there was quarrel between PW Ramesh and Godavaribai during the marriage ceremony of PW Ramesh, who is her younger brother and, therefore, she committed the suicide. Thus, the appellant sought to put blame on conduct of PW Ramesh. It is an admitted fact that Godavaribai died on 16.5.1995 somewhere around 4/5 p.m. while she was being rushed to the SRTR Government Medical College and Hospital, Ambejogai, in a jeep vehicle. The appellant was with her at the relevant time. 6. Out of the nine (9) witnesses examined by the prosecution, only two (2) witnesses are 6 rather material in the context of the alleged matrimonial cruelty. They are : (i) PW 1 Vasant (ii)PW 3 Ramesh. They are the real brothers of deceased Godavaribai, one is elder and another is younger. There is no rule of law to discard evidence of a witness only because he is related to the deceased. Still, however, versions of such closely related witnesses are required to be scrutinised with due care and caution. If their versions withstand the test of credibility then there is no difficulty in accepting the same. However, if it is noticed that their versions stem only from the anguish caused due to death of their sister then it may not be safe to place implicit reliance on such versions. 7. On close scrutiny of PW 1 Vasant, it is amply clear that he did not spell out as to why amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) was demanded by the appellant. The FIR however, 7 shows that the amount was being demanded for construction of a house property. There is nothing on record to show that construction of a house was undertaken by the appellant at the relevant time. The version of PW 1 Vasant purports to show that after three (3) years of the marriage, Godavaribai was subjected to cruelty by the appellant and his parents due to non-fulfillment of demand of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and gold ring of 5 grams. If such a demand was being put forth since about three (3) years before her death, it may be gathered that she had developed tolerance in respect of the repeated demands and was knowing that the demands were not likely to be fulfilled. If that was so, there was no immediate cause for her commission of the suicide. The learned Sessions Judge, partly discarded the testimonies of PW 1 Vasant and PW 3 Ramesh to the extent of the charge of cruelty meted out to deceased Godavaribai at hands of parents of the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that the appellant was residing separately along with deceased Godavaribai. It is observed that PW 8 Vasant and PW Ramesh failed to give details of so-called cruel treatment given to her by parents of the appellant. Thus, it is explicit that though PW 1 Vasant and his brother i.e. PW 3 Ramesh were well aware that Godavaribai was not ill-treated by her inlaws, yet, the charge was levelled against them likewise the present appellant. This conduct of PW Vasant would indicate that he has no much regard for the truth. His credibility can not be vouched for. 8. According to PW Vasant, the appellant and his parents used to beat Godavaribai. The recitals of the FIR would show that as and when she used to be troubled and harassed, Godavaribai used to visit her maternal house and used to tell her brothers about the ill-treatment. His cross- examination reveals that the appellant was residing separately and his agricultural land was also separate from that of other members of the family. The appellant resides at Shirsala which is about 6 Kms. from village Gade-Pimpalgaon. It is also an admitted fact that when Godavaribai died then she had left an infant son of about six 9 (6) months age. It has come on record that Padmakar Acharya is husband of elder sister of deceased Godavaribai. It was suggested that Godavaribai had given the gold ring to said Padmakar Acharya at the time of plantation of sugarcane through PW 3 Ramesh and it was agreed that at the time of marriage of said Ramesh, the gold ring would be returned. It was also suggested that though said Padmakar returned the gold ring, yet, PW Ramesh did not give it back to Godavaribai and therefore, there was a quarrel between them. 9. Coming to the version of PW Ramesh, it is amply clear that he had never visited house of the appellant since the marriage of Godavaribai and appellant. He admits that since the date of her marriage till the day he gave evidence in the Court, he had never visited the house of the appellant. Obviously, he has no personal knowledge as regards the nature of mutual relationship between the appellant and deceased Godavaribai as husband and wife during the period of their consortium. It is pertinent to note 10 that he did not give particulars about the alleged cruel treatment meted out to Godavaribai. He vaguely states that the demand for Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and a gold ring was being made and, therefore, she was being beaten. He was unable to locate as to since when such unlawful demands were being made. He states that on 14.5.1995, there was no talk between himself and the appellant. His version purports to show that on that day, the appellant did not take meals at his house nor he had called the appellant for such purpose. He further deposed that Godavaribai had not asked him while leaving house on the day of incident. He does not know whether she had informed her mother while leaving the matrimonial home. 10. The prosecution evidence, in fact, would show that Godavaribai committed the suicide because something had happened at the time of the marriage of PW Ramesh or thereafter before morning of 16.5.1995. During the relevant period, Godavaribai was at house of her brothers. It is nobody's case that during the said period 11 between 12th to 16th May 1995, the appellant had beaten up Godavaribai. Both the brothers attempted to show that the appellant did not allow her to attend the marriage of her cousin nor he attended the same. If he did not allow her to attend the said marriage, that by itself can not be treated as the instance of matrimonial cruelty as such. 11. There is no eye witness account regarding cruelty meted out to deceased Godavaribai during the period she was residing with the appellant at Shirsala. Admittedly, the weekly Bazar of Shirsala was available to the nearby villages and most of the villagers from Gade-Pimpalgaon used to visit that weekly Bazar. In the three (3) years period prior to her death, at least few of the villagers of Gade-Pimpalgaon could have met Godavaribai and some of them might have been informed by her as regards the matrimonial affairs. Neither of them was examined by the prosecution. The mother of deceased Godavaribai was alone at the house when the latter and her husband i.e. the appellant 12 left the house in the noon on 16.5.1995 because PW Vasant had gone to Parli for selling raw cotton and PW Ramesh was not at home. Her mother was also not examined in order to prove as to what was the reason for disappointment of Godavaribai which could have caused her to end the life. 12. It is not necessary to elaborately discuss the remaining evidence tendered by the prosecution. The Version of PW 4 Vasant Radkar purports to show that the appellant and Godavaribai were in house in the relevant noon. He was informed by the appellant that Godavaribai was lying in an unconscious condition. He assisted the appellant to take her to the Hospital at Shirsala but the Medical Officer informed that she was serious. The conduct of the appellant may be noticed. He immediately attempted to provide medical help to Godavaribai. He went to the local Hospital (PHC) in the same noon and arranged for a jeep vehicle when the Medical Officer told him that Godavaribai was serious. Obviously, he could not 13 have intended to cause her death nor could have instigated her to commit the suicide. For, if he would have instigated her to commit suicide then perhaps he might not have immediately tried to provide her medical help. 13. Considering the foregoing reasons, it is quite clear that vague versions of PW Vasant and PW Ramesh are insufficient to reach conclusion about guilt of the appellant. It need not be reiterated that both of them tried to rope in parents of the appellant though they were knowing that he was residing separately from his parents. In the absence of any independent corroboration to the interested versions of PW Vaant and PW Ramesh, I find it difficult to accept their versions regarding matrimonial cruelty meted out to deceased Godavaribai at hands of the appellant. What transpires from the record is that the appellant and Godavaribai disgracefully left her matrimonial home in the relevant noon. The appellant felt insulted, whereas she was also unhappy due to same incident which had occurred at the time of marriage of PW 14 Ramesh or subsequently. The mere fact that she was not allowed to attend the marriage of her cousin is not indicative of the matrimonial cruelty. Under these circumstances, the appellant deserves benefit of reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is improper and unsustainable. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted from the charges in Sessions Case No.158/1995. His bail bonds be deemed as cancelled. Fine amount, if has been recovered, be refunded to him. (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.) asp/office/Crappeal32797