1 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 Anand IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.571 OF 1993 Vishwanath Revanayya Swami ..Appellant Age : 30 years Residing at Shaniwar Peth, House No.88 Solapur. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.640 OF 1993 1. Rajaram Banoba Adke ..Appellants Age : 39 years 2. Sau. Rekha Rajaram Adke Age : 27 years Both resident of House No.250, Shaniwar Peth, Solapur. V/s. The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent Mr.A.P.Mundargi, Senior Counsel with Mr.Rahul Kate, for the Appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 571 of 1993 Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar, Advocate, for the Appellants in Criminal Appeal No.640 of 1993 Mrs.R.V.Newton, APP, for the Respondent  State in both matters CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : 22ND MARCH, 2011 2 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 ORAL JUDGMENT . These two Appeals are filed by three accused persons, who were tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur and convicted and sentenced for various offences by his Judgment dated 27th September, 1993 on conclusion of Sessions Case No.220 of 1991 before him. 2. Facts which are material for deciding these Appeals are as under :- Appellant Vishwanath in Criminal Appeal No.571 of 1993 was married to victim Jayshree about two years prior to 20th January, 1990 when she committed suicide by setting herself on fire. After the marriage, which was allegedly settled with the mediation of appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal No.640 of 1993 Rajaram Banoba Adke, appellant Vishwanath and Jayshree resided at the house of Adke for about one year. Since there was some 3 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 discontent on the part of victim Jayshree about Vishwanath's staying in Adke's house, another room was hired and Vishwanath and Jayshree were supposed to have started residing at the house of Kalwati Painter which has been taken on rent. However, it was Jayshree's allegation that rather than staying with her, Vishwanath chose to continue to reside with Adkes and had illicit intimacy with appellant No.2 in Criminal Appeal No.640 of 1993 Sau. Rekha Rajaram Adke, the wife of appellant Rajaram. Jayshree alleged that her husband neglected to lookafter her, did not provide her money required for her survival, used to demand a sum of Rs.50,000/- and even wanted Jayshree to keep physical relations with Rajaram. Jayshree ultimately set herself on fire on 20th January, 1990 in the morning. She died of 100% burns. 3. On a report by her brother, an offence was registered and investigation commenced. 4 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 The police had performed inquest on the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. They performed panchanama of the spot and got a sketch of the spot prepared, recorded statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, sent the charge sheet to the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Municipal Court, Solapur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Solapur. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was assigned, charged the three appellants of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and also charged Vishwanath of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty to the said charge, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 11 witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the appellants. It was the defence of the appellants that the victim herself was 5 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 of a bad temper and had harassed Vishwanath leading him to approach police. Vishwanath claimed to have also attempted to commit suicide by consuming sleeping tablets. It was alleged that the two other appellants had absolutely nothing to do with the incident and they were falsely roped in. After considering the prosecution evidence as well as the evidence of three defence witnesses, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted appellant Vishwanath for both the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code and convicted the other two appellants of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. He sentenced all the appellants to rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for 30 months each for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant Vishwanath was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years with a 6 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 fine of Rs.2000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for 9 months for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants are before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned APP for the respondent - State. With the help of all the learned Counsel I have gone through the entire evidence on record. 6. P.W.1 Kalawati Painter is the land lady at whose house Vishwanath and Jayshree had shifted about one year after the marriage. She stated that Vishwanath was not treating Jayshree well and used to come to the matrimonial home any time and beat up Jayshree whenever she demanded to know the reason for his late arrival. Appellant Vishwanath did not pay the heed to Jayshree's demand that he should not visit the house of other two 7 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 appellants. She stated that Vishwanath was not providing for household articles and necessary grocery for cooking, making Jayshree starve and being required to be fed by the neighbours. She also stated that Jayshree used to confide to her daughter Nirmala about the conduct of appellant Vishwanath. Nirmala herself was examined as P.W.2 and stated to have written two inland letters, which are marked as Exhibit No.17 and Exhibit No.18, at the instance of Jayshree to Jayshree's brother, wherein grievances of Jayshree have been aired. P.W.3 Sushilabai Kajale is panch on inquest panchanama, P.W.4 Abdul Hadi Mahamad Sayyed is panch on spot panchanama and P.W.6 Gajanan Kadagaonkar drew a sketch of the spot. It may not be necessary to refer to their evidence to decide the questions raised in these Appeals. 7. P.W.5 Advocate Sou. Sudha Deshmukh claims to have been chairperson of 'Hunda 8 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 Nirmulan Samittee' at Solapur. She states that both the spouses Jayshree and Vishwanath had approached her and she had an occasion to see an inland letter written to Jayshree's brother and also to pursuade the parties to resolve their disputes. She also states that she had asked Jayshree to go to her parental home but Jayshree refused to do so. P.W.7 Ashok Painter is a nephew of P.W.1 Kalawati Painter, who stays in the neighbourhood and also echos what Kalawati and Nirmala had to state about the marital life of Jayshree and Vishwanath. P.W.8 and P.W.9 also reside in the neighbourhood and have similar stories to tell. P.W.10 Sangayya Hiremath,is victim's brother on whose report the investigation had commenced. He too had stated about the ill treatment and also claimed to have received the two inland letters written at the instance of Victim by P.W.2 Nirmala. P.W.11 PSI Bajirao Wagh conducted investigation. 9 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 8. Appellant Vishwanath filed a written statement of defence before the Trial Court and also examined three witnesses in defence. D.W.1 Police Constable Raghunath Maske and D.W.3 Head Constable Prabhakar Gosavi were examined to show that Vishwanath had too given report about the conduct of Jayshree which have been enquired into by the police. D.W.2 Balwant Suryawanshi is the Incharge Head Master of School at which Jayshree had taken education up to 7th Std. He was examined to show that since Jayshree herself had studied up to 7th Std, there could be no occasion for Jayshree to engage Nirmala to write letters for her. 9. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted first that the evidence of P.W.1 Kalawati Painter, P.W.2 Nirmala Kunte, P.W.7 Ashok Painter, P.W.8 Md. Iqbal Md. Isaq Hotgi, P.W.9 Gurlingappa Nirgude and P.W.10 Sangayya Hiremath would show that it was the grievance 10 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 of Jayshree, the victim, that rather than staying with her, appellant Vishwanath chose to reside with Rajaram and his wife. It was also stated that Vishwanath used to sleep in the Medical shop at times, rather than going home. If that be so, the contents of the letters at Exhibit Nos.17 and 18 written by P.W.2 Nirmala at the instance of the victim, become suspicious. In the letter dated 20th September, 1989 which is at Exhibit No.17, which has been reproduced extensively by the learned Trial Judge in his Judgment, the victim had allegedly stated that Vishwanath comes home drunk, keeps the door open and keeps on shouting and threatening and without fail quarrels with her everyday. She had also stated that for 15 days appellant Vishwanath had not brought ration and when out of hunger she asked him, he paid her Rs.5/-. She had also stated in the letter that Vishwanath used to beat her up everyday. 11 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 10. In the letter at Exhibit No.18 written on 17th January, 1990, the victim had allegedly stated that at about 3:15 p.m. on 16th January, 1990, Vishwanath had poured Kerosene around the victim when victim was asleep and when victim got up because of the smell of Kerosene and asked the appellant as to why he had poured Kerosene, the appellant Vishwanath is alleged to have told that he was joking. In this letter, the victim had also stated that Vishwanath stated that he liked Rajaram Adke's wife i. e. Rekha and therefore, wanted the victim to go back to her parental house. She had again stated that everyday she was being threatened by Vishwanath. 11. P.W.2 Nirmala is married and in fact, resides at Pune but used to visit her mother's house occasionally and her information is based on what the victim allegedly told her. In cross examination, this witness stated that she saw appellant Vishwanath coming to his 12 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 house only once and volunteered that Vishwanath was not visiting his house most of the times. P.W.7 Ashok Painter stated that Jayshree and appellant Vishwanath resided in the house of Kalawati for about an year and at that time Vishwanath was not visiting Jayshree and was not providing for Jayshree. He stated that the appellant was either sleeping in the medical store or in the house of other two accused persons. 12. As to the evidence of P.W.8 Md. Iqbal Md. Isaq Hotgi, who is also neighbour, the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that since this witness did not know Kannada language, he had possibly mistaken an exchange of words between husband and wife to be a quarrel. The evidence of this witness that Jayshree used to complain that she used to be beaten up by Vishwanath, has again to be discounted because most of the witnesses state that appellant Vishwanath did not come to the 13 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 matrimonial home and used to reside in the house of two other accused or in his own shop. 13. Thus, if the story about an ill treatment or beating up is excluded, what remains is allegation of Vishwanath's avoiding company of Jayshree possibly because he was having an affair with appellant Rekha. There is absolutely no concrete evidence about Vishwanath of having any affair with Rekha. The allegations in this regard are what Jayshree is alleged to have communicated to others. But even if it is presumed for a while that Vishwanath and Rekha did have an affair, it would be difficult to conclude that mere existence of such affair could be provocation enough for the victim to commit suicide or would amount to abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, even, if the allegations are taken at their face value, they do not show that an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code is made out 14 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 against any of the appellants. It is not clear as to how appellant Rajaram and Rekha, who were staying in a different house and had absolutely no relations with the victim, could be said to be instrumental for abetment of such suicide. 14. Apart from this, the learned Counsel for the appellants pointed out that the entire story spun by the most of the prosecution witnesses about Vishwanath's returning home any time or quarreling with Jayshree or beating her up or demanding Rs.50,000/- have all surfaced for the first time in their deposition. P.W.11 Bajirao Wagh was categorical in stating that these witnesses had not so stated in their statements recorded by him. Therefore, the entire story which has been accepted by the learned Trial Judge is, in fact, an improvement and therefore, should have been discarded by him. However, at the cost of repetition, it has to be pointed out 15 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 that even if the story is taken as it is, it is not clear as to how Vishwanath's having any illicit intimacy with Rekha or keeping himself away from the company of Jayshree or staying either at the house of co-accused or in the medical shop which he owned, would amount to provocation enough for Jayshree to commit suicide or amount to abetment to commit suicide. 15. The learned APP submitted that the evidence of P.W.5 Advocate Sou. Sudha Deshmukh would show that the victim had approached her with grievances. She pointed out that though it was suggested to Sou. Sudha Deshmukh also that she had not disclosed to the investigating officer several facts which she deposed to in the Court. These omissions were, however, not put up to the investigating officer and got proved. The learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that it does seem that it was an omission on the part of the 16 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 cross examining counsel who failed to put up the omissions to the investigating officer. He pointed out that police statement of Sou. Sudha Deshmukh is a part of the record and it does not show that Sou. Sudha Deshmukh had made any such disclosure to the police officer. He further submitted, and rightly in my view, even if these omissions are included and the evidence of Sou. Sudha Deshmukh is taken as it is, it would only show that there was marital discord and both the parties had approached her. It would also show that Sou. Sudha Deshmukh had suggested to Jayshree to go to her parents house and that Jayshree had refused to go, since she preferred to stay with appellant Vishwanath. This would indicate that in spite of serious allegations about Vishwanath having an illicit intimacy with Rekha, Jayshree wanted to continue to live with Vishwanath, pointing to the inference that such intimacy could not have been provocation enough for Jayshree to commit 17 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 suicide. 16. Therefore, from whatever angle the evidence tendered by the prosecution is looked at, it cannot be held and it could not have been held by the learned Trial Judge, that the conduct of the three appellants amounted to abetment to commit suicide punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. As far as appellant Vishwanath is concerned, since he had withdrawn himself from the company of victim, there would be no question of his being guilty of cruelty, punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellants for the said offences is, therefore, unsustainable. 17. Both the Appeals are, therefore, allowed. Conviction of the appellant Vishwanath for the offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code and conviction of the appellants Rajaram and 18 Cri.Appeal 571-1993 Rekha for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and sentences imposed upon them for the said offences are set aside. They are acquitted of the said offences. (R.C.CHAVAN, J.)