1 PGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE Criminal Application No.481 of 2009 IN Criminal Appeal No. of 2009 The State of Maharashtra ... ... Applicant (Orig.Complainant) v/s. Sharad Rambhau Khande & anr. ... Respondents (Orig.Accused Nos.1 & 2) Mrs.A.A. Mane, APP for State. Mr.D.S. Mhaispurkar for Res.Nos.1 & 2. ----- CORAM : SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 13th November 2009 P.C. : 1.This is the Appeal by the prosecution against the acquittal of the accused. The accused were charged with the offences under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The victim-wife committed suicide in a well. The victim-wife met her parents over the period of the year on different festivals. Her evidence with regard to the ill-treatment by the husband is only the oral evidence that he ill-treated her. Demand of money may not be substantiated without stating a particular figure demanded or paid. However, the prosecution has made out a case that the victim-wife lived with her in- 2 laws without her husband in the village and she was sexually harassed by her father-in-law. Paragraph 10 of the judgment in answer to point No.3 shows the four instances when the complaint with regard to such sexual harassment is made out by the victim to her mother and then to her father also. The evidence also shows that when the father was informed he decided not to take any steps at the first instance and to see if such harassment continued. That is the natural human conduct. In fact, because no steps could have been taken by the parents that she may have been constrained to commit suicide. 2.If harassment of any nature is shown, the ill-treatment is made out and hence, the case for abetment is made out. This aspect would require reconsideration. 3.It may be mentioned that in the Police statement of P.W.No.3, the mother of the victim, a specific instance of sexual harassment is stated. The same incident is deposed by her in paragraph 1 at page 2 of her deposition. The cross-examination in that behalf is only a case of putting a suggestion that she had not stated that aspect to the Police. This suggestion has come alongside several other suggestions in paragraph 4 of her cross-examination. It may be mentioned that the Advocate, as an officer of the Court, who has read the 3 statement, must put suggestions in accordance with the statement. Since the statement cannot be read in evidence, and suggestions would be required to be considered to see whether any omissions or contradictions are made by a witness, it is imperative that the Advocate puts correct suggestions by way of professional conduct. The learned APP has shown the statement to Court. In fact, the Advocate on behalf of the accused, initially stated that the statement cannot be read by Court. If a case is brought to the notice of the Court that a suggestion contrary to the statement is put to a witness who may have been taken unaware due to various suggestions in the same paragraph, the conduct on the part of the Advocate is most improper. In such a case the Court not only can but must see the statement and make observations. Further the Court must consider such a statement to understand the true merits of the case and the evidence before the Court. This aspect deserves consideration. Hence, the Appeal is admitted. 4.Stand over to 24th November 2009, first on board at 3 p.m. (SMT.ROSHAN DALVI, J.)