:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPELLATE SIDE CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.93 OF 1994 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.93 OF 1994 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.93 OF 1994 The State of Maharashtra ...Appellant. v. 1. Nandkishore Ramchandra Retharekar, 2. Ramchandra Kisan Retharekar (reported to be dead) 3. Kalawati Ramchandra Retharekar All resident of Bhambuchiwadi, Bhosegaon, Tal:Patan, Dist. Satara ...Respondents. Mr.Y.M.Nakhawa, APP for the Appellant/State. Mr.H.S.Venegavkar , adv. for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. R.V.More,J. DATE: 5th February, 2009. DATE: 5th February, 2009. DATE: 5th February, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. The State has filed this appeal against the order of acquittal of the respondents/accused for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Prosecution case in short is that the respondent no.1 married with the deceased Kamal on 25th January, 1988 at Village: Bhambuchi Wadi hamlet under village Bhosgaon. Respondent no.2 Ramchandra (Deceased) is father of the respondent no.1 and the respondent no.3 is mother of the respondent no.1. They are staying jointly. After marriage, Kamal went to reside with the accused persons. She was happy in her matrimonial house :2: for about 7-8 months after her marriage. However, thereafter, all the respondents/accused started ill-treating Kamal by saying that she was not liked by them as she was black in complexion. Whenever Kamal used to visit parent’s house, she used to tell the above harassment at the hands of the respondents/accused to her mother, brother and nearest relations. Kamal was also ill-treated on account that she did not know agricultural and household work. Prosecution story further proceeds that Kamal did not tolerate ill-treatment and cruelty subjected to her by all the respondents/accused and consequently, she jumped into the well on 13.10.1990 and committed suicide. 3. Prosecution story further reveals that on 13.10.1990 at about 6.30 a.m., Kamal left her matrimonial house and was missing. So, the respondent nos.2 went to the parent’s place of Kamal and informed them that Kamal was missing. So, the mother of Kamal went to Dhebewadi police station and gave her oral report that her daughter is missing. On that report, missing case no.9 of 1990 was registered and the police searched for Kamal but she was not found. On 14.10.1990, the dead body of Kamal was found floating in the public well at Bhambuchiwadi. So A.D.No.16 of 1990 was recorded and the enquiry was taken over by the police. The police took out dead body of Kamal from the said well and inquest panchanama was prepared. The dead :3: body was sent for post-mortem. Panchanama of the scene of offence was also drawn. Mother of Kamal, Laxmibai had given her oral report on 14.10.1990. On the basis of report, C.R.No.56 of 1990 was registered. Thereafter, Respondents/accused were arrested. After arrest, statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patan against all the accused under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. As the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Sessions Court, Satara. 4. Charge was framed against all the accused/respondents under Sections 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused/respondents pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Defence of the accused was that they never ill-treated deceased Kamal and she died in that well due to the accident and they have not committed any offence. 5. In order to prove guilt of the respondents/accused, prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses. P.W.1 Mansing is a panch in whose presence the I.O. drew the panchanama of the scene of offence. P.W.8 Dattatraya Ghare is the Revenue Circle Inspector :4: who drew the map of the scene of the offence. P.W.6 is Dr.Shaikh, who conducted post-mortem on the dead body of Kamal. P.W.7 Mahadeo Gavade is the Investigating Officer, P.W.9 Krishna Suryawanshi is P.H.C., who recorded the missing report of Laxmibai, the mother of Kamal. P.W.2 Shivaji Tole is the brother of Kamal, P.W.3 Shobhatai is the cousin sister of deceased Kamal, P.W.4 Chhaya brother’s wife of Kamal, P.W.5 Shantabai Tole paternal aunt of deceased Kamal. 6. Now let us first consider whether the prosecution prove that the deceased Kamal committed suicide by jumping into the well. It is not disputed that the dead body of Kamal was found floating in the water of the public well situated at village:Bhambuchi Wadi. Post mortem examination of the said body was done by P.W.6. P.M.Notes as well as statement of P.W.6 show that cause of death of Kamal was due to asphyxia due to drowning. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Kamal died due to drowning. The next question, which deserves consideration is whether deceased Kamal jumped into the well so as to commit suicide or she slipped into the well accidentally while she had gone to fetch water. Exhibit 27 is the map of the scene of offence, which is duly proved by the Revenue Circle Officer. This map shows that the well in which the body of the deceased Kamal was found floating was surrounded by agricultural land on three sides and :5: towards the East side, there was way leading to the Village:Bhambuchi Wadi. Panchanama of the scene of offence, which is proved by P.W.1 Mansing shows that there are two pulleys, which are fixed on the well in order to facilitate drawing of water from it. This well is very near to the village: Bhambuchi Wadi. The above circumstances reveal that the water from the well was being used for drinking purposes. The prosecution case that the deceased Kamal left house at 6.30 a.m. on 13.10.1990 and as she was not returned, respondent no.2 went to the parents’ house of Kamal and thereafter at the instance of the Kamal’s mother, missing case was registered on 14.10.1990. Kamal’s body was found floating in the well. Thus, possibility of Kamal leaving the house at 6.30 a.m. for fetching water from the well can not be ruled out. The prosecution in order to rule out this possibility, relied upon circumstances namely, that no pitcher or pot was found on the spot. However, in order to substantiate this circumstance, no attempts were made to search any article in the water of that well. The depth of well is about 33 ft. and at the relevant time, there was water in that well upto 16 ft. deep. Diameter of the well is about 8 ft. which ruled out possibility of injuries on the person of the deceased Kamal in case of accidental fall. The learned trial Judge also considered the above circumstances coupled with the prosecution evidence and recorded the findings that the prosecution failed to prove that the :6: deceased Kamal committed suicide by jumping into the well on 13.10.1990. I find the view taken by the trial Court is possible and therefore, no interference is required so far as the finding that the offence under Section 306 is not proved. Once, it is held that the prosecution could not beyond reasonable doubt prove that the deceased Kamal committed suicide then there is no question of the respondents/accused committing any offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, namely abetment of suicide. 7. Prosecution in order to substantiate its case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code examined P.W.2 Shivaji Tole the real brother of deceased Kamal, P.W.3 Shobhatai, P.W.4 Chhaya and P.W.5 Shantabai Tole. P.W.2 Shivaji brother of the deceased Kamal in his deposition stated that after marriage, Kamal went to reside with the accused persons and she was happy in her matrimonial house for about 8-9 months after her marriage. He further deposed that the accused persons started ill-treating Kamal by saying that she was not liked by them. P.W.2 also gave another reason for ill-treatment namely, the utensils presented by the parents of Kamal in her marriage were not liked by the accused/respondents. P.W.3 Shobhatai, cousin sister of the deceased Kamal deposed that Kamal told her that she is being ill-treated by the accused/respondents as she was not knowing household and agricultural work. P.W.4 :7: Chhaya is the wife of P.W.2 Shivaji. She deposed that Kamal was not liked by the accused as she was black in complexion and the respondent no.1/accused no.1 wanted to marry with another girl. P.W.5 Shantabai, who is the paternal aunt of the deceased Kamal deposed that Kamal was being ill-treated since marriage. She also stated that utensils provided to Kamal by her parents in the marriage were not liked by the accused and, therefore, other utensils were purchased and presented to the accused persons. 8. Evidence of P.W.2, 3, 4 and 5 is contradictory to each other. Reasons given for ill-treatment by these witnesses are not consistent. P.W.5 says ill-treatment was being given immediately since marriage. However, P.W.2 says that Kamal was very happy in matrimonial house for initial 8-9 months from her marriage. P.W.2 says that reason for ill-treatment was that Kamal was not liked by the respondents. P.W.4 says that utensils given to Kamal in the marriage were not liked by the respondents/accused. However, P.W.5 says that new utensils were given to the deceased Kamal. P.W.3 made out different story and deposed that Kamal was harassed as she was not knowing household and agricultural work. 9. One more circumstance benefit of which deserves to be given to the accused is that though Laxmibai mother of the deceased Kamal lodged missing report on :8: 13.10.1990, she did not disclose in the report about the alleged ill-treatment caused by the accused to the deceased Kamal. P.W.9 police constable, who recorded missing report has admitted that while recording missing report at the instance of Laxmibai, accused no.2/Ramchandra came and informed that his daughter-in-law is missing. Before that accused no.2 had gone to the parents’ house of Kamal and informed that Kamal is missing. 10. It is not the prosecution case that the deceased Kamal was harassed to meet unlawful demands for any property or valuable security and, therefore, prosecution case is not covered under Clause (b) of Explanation to Section 498A. Even in order to cover Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A, prosecution has to prove wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide. In my considered view, evidence of P.W.2,3, 4 and 5 does not make out any wilful conduct on the part of the accused so as to attract Clause (a) of the Explanation to Section 498A. It is settled law that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract provisions of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It must be established that harassment is with a view to coerce wife to commit suicide or to fulfil illegal demands of husband or in-laws. Naturally all quarrels between the husband and wife or between :9: in-laws and daughter-in-law will not amount to any cruelty as contemplated under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Evidence of P.W.2 to 5 does not inspire any confidence and, therefore, it can not be said that the prosecution was successful beyond any reasonable doubt to prove offence against the respondents under Section 306 and 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has taken similar view. The view taken by the trial Court is possible view and, therefore, no interference is required in the aforesaid appeal against acquittal. 11. I find no merit in the appeal and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.) (R.V.MORE, J.)