CriAppeal-36-2002

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2002

1.Narendra Sahebrao Patil,

Age 30 years, Occ. Nil

2.Sanjay Sahebrao Patil,

age 35 years, Occ. Agri.

3.Sushilabai Sahebrao Patil,

Age 35 years, Occ. Household

All Resident of Manjre,

Taluka Nandurbar,

District Nandurbar. … Appellants

[Orig. Accused Nos. 1 to 3]

Versus

The State of Maharashtra … Respondent

…..

Mr. Ravindra S. Shinde, Advocate for the Appellants.

Mr. N. D. Batule, APP for Respondent-State.

.....

CORAM :ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

Reserved on : 18.01.2024

Pronounced on: 23.01.2024

JUDGMENT :

1.Instant appeal arises out of the judgment and order of

conviction dated 20.12.2001 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional

Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1994

recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under Sections

306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. 2024:BHC-AUG:1357

CriAppeal-36-2002

-2-

PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF

2.Deceased Chandanbai was married to accused-appellant

Narendra on 16.05.1993. After marriage, she went to reside with

appellant no.1 husband and in-laws including appellant nos. 2 and 3

i.e. her brother-in-law and mother-in-law respectively. After marriage,

everything was smooth for initial period. However, after five weeks,

when deceased Chandanbai visited her parents’ house, she reported

that all accused are demanding Rs.10,000/- for purchasing

agricultural land and they wanted the amount to be brought from her

father. That, there was threat that if she fails to bring the amount,

then she would be divorced and second marriage of husband

Narendra would be performed. Accused persons were taunting

deceased for not cooking properly and not working properly. They all

were always insulting her. Mother-in-law instigated husband saying

that parents of Chandanbai insulted her, as a result of which husband

beat deceased by means of stick. On 21.04.1994, a letter from

deceased was received to PW4 brother regarding demand of new

clothes to her father-in-law. Therefore new clothes were also

arranged. However, on 25.04.1994, message was received about

Chandanbai to be serious. When brother and other relatives reached

village Manjre, they learnt that deceased Chandanbai had suffered

burns and therefore complaint Exhibit 28 was lodged by brother, on

CriAppeal-36-2002

-3-

the basis of which crime was registered by Nandurbar Police Station.

PW6 carried out investigation and filed charge sheet for commission

of offence punishable under Sections 306, 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 of IPC

and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. On

appreciation of evidence adduced by prosecution, learned trial Judge

held accused guilty for offence punishable under Sections 306 and

498-A of IPC and sentenced them to suffer imprisonment and to pay

fine respectively. Said judgment dated 20.12.2001 is now assailed

before this court.

SUBMISSIONS

3.Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned

trial Judge has already acquitted accused persons from charge under

Section 304-B IPC as well as under the provisions of the Dowry

Prohibition Act. Therefore, learned trial Judge ought not to have held

accused guilty of offence under Section 498-A of IPC. It is emphasized

that there is no independent, reliable evidence in support of charge of

cruelty. That, even accepting the case of prosecution witnesses, there

was mere taunting and there was no mental or physical harassment so

as to attract offence of 498-A IPC. He submitted that there was no

previous complaint at any point of time but merely on losing sister,

brother had set law into motion out of annoyance.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-4-

4.He next submitted that trial court has also convicted appellants

for offence under Section 306 of IPC but, according to him, there is

no evidence about abetment to commit suicide or instigation as a

result of which deceased committed suicide. He pointed out that there

is no material whatsoever to show that there was cruelty which was of

such nature that deceased was left with no other alternative but to

immolate herself. According to him, none of the ingredients which are

required for attracting such offence are available in the prosecution

evidence. Therefore, it is his submission that learned trial court has

not only failed to appreciate the evidence in correct perspective, but

has also not considered the settled legal position. According to him,

here prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable

doubt. He reiterated that except mother and brother, who are

interested witnesses, no other relative or even neighbour was

examined. That, in the entire case mens rea or ill intention is patently

missing and therefore it is his submission that both charges under

Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC were not established or proved. Hence

he seeks indulgence of this court for setting aside the impugned

judgment.

Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance of the

following decisions:

CriAppeal-36-2002

-5-

1.Bhartendra Dhanraj Bhoyar v. State of Maharashtra AIR

OnLine 2023 Bom 1638.

2.Lata Pramod Dangre v. State of Maharashtra 2022 (3)

ABR (Cri) 572 : AIR OnLine 2022 Bom 136.

3.Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan AIR OnLine 2021 SC

849 : (2021) 11 SCALE 698.

4.Amalendu Palalias Jhantu v. State of W.B. AIR 2010 SC

512 : 2009 AIR SCW 7070.

5.Kishangiri Mangalgiri Goswami v. State of Gujarat AIR

2009 SC 1808 ; (2009) 1 CriLR (Raj) 362.

6.Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. AIR 2002

SC 1998.

7.Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh AIR 2001 SC

3837: 2001 AIR SCW 4282.

5.Per contra, learned APP submitted that shortly after marriage,

accused persons had put up a demand of Rs.10,000/- for purchase of

agricultural land. Deceased promptly reported demand both,

personally as well as by writing letter. That, she had reported about

regular insults, ill-treatment, mental harassment and taunting. He

pointed out that it has clearly come in the evidence of brother that

CriAppeal-36-2002

-6-

deceased Chandanbai was mercilessly beaten by husband. There is

evidence about mother-in-law and brother-in-law humiliating

deceased and instigating husband. Therefore, all were subjecting

deceased to cruelty. That, cruelty was of such nature and extent that

deceased was forced to end up her life. Therefore, finding evidence to

that extent, learned trial Judge has correctly recorded guilt and so he

prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

6.During trial, though charge was framed for offence under

Sections 498-A, 304-B, 306 of IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the

Dowry Prohibition Act, conviction was recorded for only offence

under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 498A are

as follows:

(1) A woman was married

(2) She was subjected to cruelty;

(3) Such cruelty consisted in -

(i)Any willful conduct as was likely to drive such woman to

commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life,

(ii)harm to such woman with a view to coercing her to meet

unlawful demand for property or valuable security or on

CriAppeal-36-2002

-7-

account of failure of such woman or any of her relations to

meet the unlawful demand;

(iii)the woman was subjected to such cruelty by her husband or

any relation or her husband

7.In a landmark case of Girdhar Shankar Tawade v. State of

Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177, this Court gave succinct enumeration

of the object and ingredients of Section 498-A IPC as under :

"3. The basic purport of the statutory provision is to avoid

"cruelty" which stands defined by attributing a specific

statutory meaning attached thereto as noticed

hereinbefore. Two specific instances have been taken note

of in order to ascribe a meaning to the word "cruelty" as is

expressed by the legislatures: whereas Explanation (a)

involves three specific situations viz. (i) to drive the

woman to commit suicide or (ii) to cause grave injury or

(iii) danger to life, limb or health, both mental and

physical, and thus involving a physical torture or atrocity,

in Explanation (b) there is absence of physical injury but

the legislature thought it fit to include only coercive

harassment which obviously as the legislative intent

expressed is equally heinous to match the physical injury :

whereas one is patent, the other one is latent but equally

serious in terms of the provisions of the statute since the

same would also embrace the attributes of "cruelty" in

terms of Section 498-A.”

CriAppeal-36-2002

-8-

8.Likewise, for attracting offence under Section 306 of IPC, it is

obligatory on the part of prosecution to prove the essential

ingredients which are as follows:

(1) There was suicide of a person;

(2) It was committed in consequence of abetment of the

accused.

9.The sine qua non for above charge is abetment to commit

suicide. As to what amounts to abetment is provided in the statute

itself.

“306. Abetment of suicide- If any person commits suicide,

whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term

which may extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to

fine.”

“107. Abetment of a thing- A person abets the doing of a

thing, who-

First- Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly- Engages with one or more other person or persons

in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or

illegal omission takes place in pursuance of said conspiracy,

and in order to the doing of that thing; or

CriAppeal-36-2002

-9-

Thirdly – Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the

doing of that thing.”

10.There are numerous and series of judgments of the Hon’ble

Apex Court on above penal section. A few landmark judgments could

be enumerated as under:

In the case of Swamy Prahalddas v. State of M.P. and another,

1995 Supp (3) SCC 438: (AIROnline 1995 SC 94), the supreme Court

was considering a situation where the accused was alleged to have

remarked to the deceased ‘to go and die’ and thereafter, the deceased

committed suicide. Even in such a situation the Supreme Court held

that the allegations, even if they were to be accepted as it is, did not

prima facie reflect mens rea on the part of the accused and it was also

found that the deceased did have time to weigh the pros and cons of

the act by which he ultimately ended his life. It was held that the

accused need not face the charge in such a situation.

In the case of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), relied by

learned counsel for the appellants, the Supreme Court was

considering a situation where the deceased had left behind a suicide

CriAppeal-36-2002

-10-

note, wherein it was specifically stated that the accused was

responsible for his death. In the said case, the Supreme Court

considered the liability of the accused to face investigation and

prosecution under Section 306 of the IPC, in the context of Section

107 thereof and it was held that the word “instigate” denotes

incitement or urging to do some drastic or inadvisable action or to

stimulate or incite, further holding that presence of mens rea,

therefore, was a necessary concomitant of instigation. It was found

that in the said case the alleged abusive words were used by the

accused against the deceased, two days prior to the date when the

deceased was found hanging. In these circumstances, the Supreme

Court found it fit to quash the criminal proceedings.

In the case of Madan Mohan Sing v. State of Gujarat and

another (2010) 8 SCC 628 : (2010 AIR SCW 5101), the accused was

alleged to have instigated his driver to commit suicide. There was a

suicide note of 15 pages left behind by the deceased and the accused

had approached the High Court for quashing of the FIR and the

criminal proceedings, but his prayer was rejected, as consequence of

which, the accused was before the Supreme Court seeking relief. The

Supreme Court applied Section 306 read with 107 of the IPC and

found that there has to be proximity between the alleged acts of the

CriAppeal-36-2002

-11-

accused and the extreme step taken by the deceased of committing

suicide. It was held that the allegations made and the material ought

to be of a definite nature and not imaginary or inferential. The

Supreme Court went into the suicide note of about 15 pages and

found that the contents thereof expressed the anguish of the

deceased, who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him, but

it was noted that the contents fell short of depicting an intentional act

on the part of the accused for driving the deceased to commit suicide.

On this basis, the judgment of the High Court was set aside and the

FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed.

In the case of S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and

another (2010) 12 SCC 190 : (2010 AIR SCW 4938), the Supreme

Court considered the facts of the said case and after referring to

Sections 107 and 306 of the IPC, found that the High Court had erred

in not quashing the criminal proceedings. Reference was made to a

series of judgments on the aspect of abetment, particularly in the

context of instigation. It was observed in the said judgment as

follows:-

“25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a

person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-12-

Without a positive act on the part of the accused to

instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be

sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of

the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to

convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a

clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an

active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit

suicide seeing no option and that act must have been

intended to push the deceased into such a position that he

committed suicide.

26. In the instant case, the deceased was undoubtedly

hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and

differences which happen in our day-to-day life. Human

sensitivity of each individual differs from the other.

Different people behave differently in the same situation.”

In the case of Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of

Maharashtra and another (2018) 7 SCC 781 : (AIR 2018 SC 2659),

the Supreme Court took note of the fact that there were indeed two

lines of cases in the context of quashing of criminal proceedings,

when the accused was facing charge of offence under Section 306 of

the IPC. After taking note thereof, in the said judgment, the Supreme

Court held that the accused may face trial if the material on record

prima facie shows that the situation was created deliberately by the

CriAppeal-36-2002

-13-

accused so as to drive the victim to suicide. On the facts of the said

case, it was found that the FIR and the criminal proceedings deserved

to be quashed.

In the case of Geo Varghese (supra), relied by learned counsel

for the appellants the Supreme court held as follows:

“23. What is required to constitute an alleged abetment of

suicide under Section 306 IPC is there must be an

allegation of either direct or indirect act of incitement to

the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations

of harassment of the deceased by another person would

not be sufficient in itself, unless, there are allegations of

such actions on the part of the accused which compelled

the commission of suicide. Further, if the person

committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations

attributed to the accused is otherwise not ordinarily

expected to induce a similarly situated person to take the

extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to

hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what

is required is an examination of every case on its own facts

and circumstances and keeping in consideration the

surrounding circumstances as well, which may have

bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the

psyche of the deceased.”

CriAppeal-36-2002

-14-

In the case of Shabbir Hussain v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

and others (order dated 26/07/2021 passed in SLP (Cri) No.

7284/2017) : AIROnline 2021 SC 761, the Supreme Court relied

upon earlier judgment in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra) and held

that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the

accused proximate to the time of occurrence, which led to the suicide,

would not amount to an offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

Further, in the case of Kishori Lal v. State of M.P. (2007) 10

SCC 797, the Hon’ble Apex Court gave a clear exposition of Section

107 IPC when it observed as follows in para 6:

“6. Section 107, IPC defines abetment of a thing. The

offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence

provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when

(1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2)

engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy

for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act

or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things

are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word

“instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or

bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment

may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as

provide in the three clauses of Section 107. Section 109

provides that if the act abetted is committed in

consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the

CriAppeal-36-2002

-15-

punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be

punished with the punishment provided for the original

offence. “Abetted” in Section 109 means the specific

offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of

which a person is charged with the abetment is normally

linked with the proved offence.”

11.Having discussed settled legal position on both the provisions,

this court proceeds to re-analyze and re-appreciate the evidence

adduced by prosecution and to further verify whether conviction and

guilt recorded by the trial Judge is justified or not and is at all in

consonance with the legal requirement.

12.Case set up by prosecution is that accused persons subjected

deceased Chandanbai to maltreatment. Because of mental and

physical cruelty meted out to her, she immolated herself. In order to

prove their case, prosecution has examined following six witnesses:

PW1 Subhash Baburao Pawar was the Police Patil who gave

information about the incident to Nandurbar Taluka

Police Station and it was reduced into writing vide

Exhibit 18.

PW2 Shivaji Hilal Patil acted as pancha to seizure of letter

produced by brother of deceased vide panchanama

Exhibit 20.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-16-

PW3 Dr. Dagajirao Pundlik Patil was the autopsy doctor who

issued postmortem note Exhibit 26 stating therein the

cause of death as “asphyxia due to 100% burn due to

cardio-respiratory failure”.

PW4 Sanjay is brother of deceased.

PW5 Annapurnabai is mother of deceased.

PW6 Dy.S.P. Devidas Mahale is the Investigating Officer.

13.Out of six witnesses, evidence of brother and mother of the

deceased is of significance being family members of deceased

Chandanbai. As regards to offence under Section 498-A IPC is

concerned, it is to be seen whether brother and mother are

corroborating each other and have given consistent testimonies so as

to rely on their evidence. Ground raised before this Court in appeal is

that they are not consistent and therefore it is incumbent upon this

court to carefully examine their evidence on record.

14.Informant brother PW4 in the initial chief deposed about

marriage being performed, his father giving Rs.12,500/- to father-in-

law of deceased for clothes and ornaments. According to him, for

initial 15 days of the marriage and even three weeks thereafter when

she visited their house and returned back to her matrimonial house,

CriAppeal-36-2002

-17-

everything was smooth and she was happy. According to him, when

thereafter she was brought by his father, deceased informed that all

accused and father of accused had told her to bring Rs.10,000/- for

purchasing agricultural land. He claims that deceased also told that if

she fails to bringthe amount, divorce would be given and second

marriage of Narendra would be performed. He levells allegations

about accused persons taunting her for not cooking properly; not

doing work properly; taing long time to cook meals and eat meals.

According to him, all insulted her and deceased promptly reported it

to them.

He also deposed that mother-in-law instigated husband stating

that when she went to the maternal house of deceased, she was

insulted. That, on such instigation, husband beat her by means of

stick on her back and that he had seen violence marks. That, mother

in law used to make complaints that deceased was not waking up

early, not cook properly and that she had no manners and that they

had not brought new clothes for father-in-law of husband when he

had undergone operation. He further deposed that deceased secretly

wrote a letter asking them to arrange for new clothes for her father-

in-law. Then, he learnt about the incidence of burns.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-18-

15.Mother PW5, also as regards to ill treatment is concerned,

deposed that for one month or so her daughter was treated well. But

thereafter deceased told that all accused were demanding Rs.10,000/-

for purchasing agricultural land and that there was taunting to her for

not cooking properly, not washing clothes properly, not going to the

field and not waking up early in the morning. According to her, when

she met deceased in the marriage of her niece, deceased said that,

had they paid Rs.10,000/-, she would not have been ill treated. That,

accused mother-in-law levelled false allegations and therefore

husband Narendra took her to the field and beat her by means of stick

and violence marks were shown by deceased. She also stated that

deceased told that once earthen pot fell from her hands and broke

and therefore accused said that they would bring another wife for

accused husband. That, she was dragged out of bathroom on

accusation of not washing clothes properly. She stated that father-in-

law made complaint that her daughter did not gave him leg massage

and was not going towards him and that daughter had been

impregnated by someone else prior to the marriage. She also stated

about receiving letter from deceased and thereafter they got the news

about her burns.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-19-

16.In cross of PW4 brother, he has answered that he does not

know whether accused husband was serving at Surat. However he

admitted that when he made inquiry in the village Manjre, some

persons were saying that accused Narendra had gone to Surat. He

admitted that after marriage when deceased sister came for the first

time at that time she stayed for 15 days and her father-in-law had

come to take her away and she stayed at matrimonial house for one

month and she was happy. He admitted portion marked “A” to be true

and correct. He denied that father-in-law of his sister had asked his

documents for arranging employment. He admitted in para 24 that he

had not specified the date, day or the month when deceased disclosed

about ill treatment to her at the hands of accused. He also admitted

about not disclosing the name of daughter of his maternal aunt who

was married at Patan. He admitted that he did not take his sister for

treatment on seeing violence marks. He also admitted about not

mentioning day, date and month as to when his sister disclosed about

demand of money and clothes for father-in-law. In para 25 he

admitted that when he made inquiries with father of accused, he

disclosed that deceased died because of flare of the stove while she

was heating water. In para 26 he has admitted that accused Narendra

had come from Surat to attend the funeral in the evening which had

taken place at Village Manjre i.e. matrimonial place. Rest is all denial.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-20-

17.As like PW4, even mother of deceased i.e. PW5 in cross

admitted that she cannot give month in which deceased showed

violence marks. She admitted that her daughter living happy married

life up to second mool. She was also unable to give the month and

year of demand of Rs.10,000/- raised by accused. Rest is all denial.

18.On carefully re-analyzing the above discussed testimony of

informant brother and mother of deceased, it is clearly emerging that

they are both speaking about deceased being asked to arrange

Rs.10,000/- for agricultural land and on its failure, there was ill

treatment. However, it is clearly revealed that almost all accusations

are for taunting on the count of not preparing proper meals, not

waking up early, not washing clothes, eating too much. Both are

speaking about in-laws being upset for not bringing new clothes after

alleged operation of father-in-law. Though both are attributing

beating by husband with a stick, when said incident took place, even

is admitted by them to be not disclosed in their testimony. They are

also admitting about not giving particulars like day, date month or

year of said demand. Therefore, prima facie allegations are omnibus

in nature. Informant brother does not speak about deceased stating to

them that, had they paid Rs.10,000/-, there would not have been ill

CriAppeal-36-2002

-21-

treatment to her. Informant is also silent about what is stated by his

mother, i.e. about father-in-law being upset as his legs were not

pressed by deceased and she did not come near him. Her version

about accused persons disowning the pregnancy from husband is also

not stated by PW4. Therefore, for above reasons, they are not found

to be consistent. Neither specific particulars like day, date or year of

alleged demand and ill treatment are given by both of them. Even

where accused persons were planning to purchase agricultural land is

also not stated by both of them.

In the considered opinion of this court, mere taunting of above

nature would not amount to harassment or mental cruelty. Solitary

instance of husband beating with stick is stated but even its details are

not given as to when the same took place. No steps are taken

thereafter to question accused or to give understanding to the

accused. Consequently, evidence of brother and mother does not

disclose commission of offence under Section 498-A IPC.

19.Case of prosecution is that getting fed up of ill treatment,

deceased immolated herself. Whereas, defence case is that while

heating water in the early morning, there was flare of a stove flame

and deceased catching fire and sustaining 100% burns.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-22-

20.Admittedly, there is no distinct evidence showing what

happened exactly that night or even during the proximity of episode

of burns. Neighbours are not examined. Occurrence has admittedly

taken place in the house. PW4 and PW5 i.e. brother and mother have

not levelled any allegations of any maltreatment in proximity to the

incident. Spot panchanama on close scrutiny shows that at the place

there was stove and a pot which was blackened at the bottom.

Alleged incident had taken place around 3.00 to 4.00 a.m. on

25.04.1994. Spot panchanama was drawn at 2.00 p.m. on 26.04.1994

wherein above circumstances were noted. These tell tale signs about

stove lying, smell of kerosene and blackened pot, probabilizes defence

case about sustaining accidental burns. Even AD was registered with

such history. In absence of any material to show that accused persons

set her to fire, it would be unjust to indict them. It would amount to

drawing assumptions and presumptions. Though informant denied

that husband Narendra was serving at Surat, in cross para 26 he has

admitteds that husband of deceased had come in the evening from

Surat for attending funeral. Therefore, taking such answer into

consideration, it is doubtful whether husband was at all present in the

house when the alleged incident of burns took place.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-23-

21.When specific accusations of prosecution are that deceased

committed suicide by immolating herself, then burden is on

prosecution to establish the same. It is expected of prosecution to

show that accused persons abetted the suicide and are thereby

responsible for the same. But one does not come across any iota of

evidence regarding all accused abetting deceased to commit suicide or

ill treatment being meted out to her which was continuous and of

such nature that she was left with no other alternative but to end up

her life. In absence of any evidence about ill treatment or abetment in

proximity to the episode of burns, it is unsafe to hold that they have

abetted her suicide.

Settled law on the point of offence of 306 IPC has already been

discussed in aforesaid paras. Applying the settled legal position here,

in the considered opinion of this court, there is no evidence about

instigation or inducement to commit suicide. Mens rea which is

essential ingredient is shown to be missing in the testimony of PW4

and PW55. Simplicitor accusations of taunting and demanding

Rs.10,000/-, which was admittedly not followed by physical or mental

cruelty, itself would not be sufficient to attribute abetment to commit

suicide. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, this charge

fails.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-24-

22.On going through the impugned judgment, it is evident that

learned trial Judge has recorded guilt by accepting the case of

prosecution without properly appreciating the available evidence in

its proper perspective. Learned trial Judge lost sight of legal

requirements for fastening guilt. Settled law on the point of both the

offences has not been applied and unfortunately, with such weak and

fragile evidence, conviction has been recorded. The view adopted by

learned trial Judge is not in consonance with the evidence on record.

Hence, interference is called for in such findings. Accordingly, I

proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

I.The appeal is allowed.

II.Conviction awarded to the appellants, i.e. appellant no.1

Narendra Sahebrao Patil, appellant no.2 Sanjay Sahebrao Patil and

appellant no.2 Sushilabai Sahebrao Patil, by learned Adhoc Additional

Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1994 under

Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC on 20.12.2001 stands quashed and set

aside.

III.All three appellants stand acquitted of the offence punishable

under Sections 306 and 498-A of IPC.

CriAppeal-36-2002

-25-

IV.The bail bonds of appellants stand cancelled.

V.Fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to the appellants

after the statutory period.

VI. It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order

regarding disposal of Muddemal.

[ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.]

vre