JUDGMENT :- The appellants who are original accused Nos.1 to 3 have challenged the judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.39/ 1991, whereby the accused were convicted for the offence punishable U/s.498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and accused Nos.1 and 2 were sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and accused No.3 was sentenced to S.I. for 2 months and to pay fine. 2. To state in brief, the prosecution case is that deceased Sunita was married to accused No.1 Dnyaneshwar on 10-3-1988. Accused No.2 is elder brother and accused No.3 is mother of accused No.1. At the time of marriage amount of Rs.6,000/- was given to the accused as dowry by her uncles and they had also incurred marriage expenses. For about one and half years after the marriage, she was treated well. However, thereafter, they began to beat and ill-treat her to compell her to bring money from her uncle P.W.2 Govindrao. On 2-9-1989 her uncle P.W.2 Govindrao had been to the house of accused, at that time Sunita was beaten by the accused. Therefore, he took her to Hasnabad Police Station, where she lodged report against the accused persons. At that time Sunita was pregnant. Her uncle Govindrao took her to his house at Nagpur where she gave birth to a male child. After birth of the child accused No.2 Sheshrao and Gramsevak Sadawarte went to P.W.2 Govindrao at Nagpur and requested him to send Sunita. On 2-6-1990 he took Sunita to his village Kolwad, where his brother P.W.1 Sahebrao was residing. On 3-6-1989 accused No.1 Dnyaneshwar executed a document called Hamipatra Exh.46, whereby he confessed to have ill-treated her earlier but also assured that in future he would treat her properly. The document was attested by his father and some people from the village. Thereafter, she was sent back to her husband's house on 3-6-1990. According to prosecution, thereafter also ill-treatment continued to her on account of demand of money and finally being unable to bear the cruel treatment any more, on 10-9-1990 she committed suicide by consuming poison. Next day message was given to her uncles. Her death was registered as accidental death case No.26/ 1990. After inquest panchanama of the dead body, post-mortem examination was conducted on the same. Next day message was given to her uncles. Her death was registered as accidental death case No.26/ 1990. After inquest panchanama of the dead body, post-mortem examination was conducted on the same. On 12-9-1990 her uncle P.W.1 Sahebrao lodged a report at Police Station Hasnabad, on the basis of which Crime No.94/ 90 against accused Nos.1 to 4 came to be registered for the offences U/s.304- B, 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. After investigation charge-sheet was filed against the accused Nos.1 to 3. 3. Vide Exh.28 all the three accused were charged for the offences U/s.304-B, 306, 498-A of the I.P.C. They pleaded not guilty. On behalf of the prosecution in all 7' witnesses were examined. Taking into consideration the evidence on record, the learned trial Court acquitted accused persons for the offence punishable U/s.304-B as well as U/s.306 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. but convicted them for the offences punishable U/s.498-A read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. 4. Heard Mr. K. M. Babhulgaonkar, learned counsel holding for Mr. S.A. Deshmukh, Advocate for the appellants and Mrs. R. R. Mane, learned A.P.P. for the State. Perused the record and proceedings of the trial Court. 5. Certain facts which are no more in dispute may be stated thus: Father of Sunita had died during her childhood and she was brought up by her uncles P.W.1 Sahebrao and P.W.2 Govindrao. She was married to accused No.1 on 10-3-1988. As per their evidence which is not controverted, they had paid amount of Rs.6,000/- and had also incurred expenses of the marriage. For about one and half years the marriage she was treated well and during that period there were no complaints. On 3-9-1989 P.W.2 Govindrao went to meet Sunita at the house of the accused. According to him, at that time she was beaten and there was complaint from her that on account of demand of money, her husband, brother-in-law and mother-in-law used to beat and ill-treat her. Therefore, on the same day, deceased Sunita went to Police Station Hasnabad, where she lodged a report, on the basis of which case U/s.498-A of the I.P.C. was registered against the accused. At that time she was pregnant for 7 months. P.W.2 Govindrao took her with him to his house at Nagpur, where she gave birth to a male child. Therefore, on the same day, deceased Sunita went to Police Station Hasnabad, where she lodged a report, on the basis of which case U/s.498-A of the I.P.C. was registered against the accused. At that time she was pregnant for 7 months. P.W.2 Govindrao took her with him to his house at Nagpur, where she gave birth to a male child. After that by the end of May, 1990, accused No.2 Sahebrao and Gramsevak Sadawarte approached P.W.2 Govindrao and requested' him to send Sunita back to her husband's house. At that time he insisted assurance of good treatment in future. They agreed to give such assurance. Therefore, on 2-6-1989 he took her to Kol wad, where P.W.1 Sahebrao was residing. According to P.W.1 Sahebrao, P.W.2 Govindrao, P.W.3 Mhatarji on 3-6-1990, accused No.1 executed a Hamipatra Exh.46, wherein he confessed to have ill-treated her earlier and assured to treat her properly in future. Execution of that document is not admitted by the accused. However, it is admitted fact that on 3-6-1990 Sunita went to her husband's house alongwith accused No.1 and his father. Since 3-6-1990, till her death on 10-9-1990 she was living with her husband and accused Nos.2 and 3 at village Yeota. 6. Also there is no dispute that on 109-1990 she consumed come pesticides and committed suicide. Inquest-panchanama Exh.42 was conducted on her person and then postmortem examination was conducted, viscera was preserved and referred to C.A. and as per C.A. report Exh.70 Organochloro insecticide (Endosulfan) was detected in the viscera and the level of Endosulfan was of the same order as that found in fatal poisoning cases. Thus, it is proved and it is not disputed that she had committed suicide by consuming insecticides Endosulfan. 7. P.W.1 Sahebrao and P.W.2 Govindrao deposed that at the time of marriage they had given amount of Rs.6,000/- as dowry and they had also incurred marriage expenses and for about one and half years after the marriage Sunita was given good treatment. After that P.W.2 Govindrao had been to the house of accused to meet Sunita, where he came to know about beating and ill-treatment and he took her to Police Station Jafrabad, where she had lodged a report against the accused. According to P.W.1 Sahebrao, after that report he came to know about beating and ill-treatment by the accused. That report was lodged on 3-91989. According to P.W.1 Sahebrao, after that report he came to know about beating and ill-treatment by the accused. That report was lodged on 3-91989. From that date she was living with her uncle Govindrao. For a period of about 9 months, she was with her uncle and on 3-6-1990 she was sent back to her husband's house after assurance of good treatment to her. P.W.2 Govindrao deposed that after the marriage Sunita used to make demands of small amount of Rs.50/- or Rs.100/- on the ground that unless such amounts are given, she would be ill-treated by the husband and in-laws but Govindrao admitted that payments of such amounts were made by P.W.-1 Sahebrao and not by him. However, P.W.1 Sahebrao did not speak anything about such demands and payment. According to these two witnesses on 3-6-1990 accused No.1 executed Hamipatra Exh.46, wherein accused No.1 admitted that about 9/10 months before a quarrel had taken place between himself and his wife and at that time he had asked her to bring money from her parents and on account of her refusal to bring money, he had also beaten her, for which she had lodged case U/s.498-A of I.P.C. and that case was pending. In that Hamipatra, he assured that in future he would treat her properly and there would be no such quarrel, beating etc. The accused denied that he had executed such document. According to P.W.1 Sahebrao, P.W.2 Govindrao and P.W.3 Mhatarji, who is one of the attesting witnesses, accused No.1 had put his thumb mark on this document. P.W.2 admitted that accused No.1 can put his signature. There is no explanation why his thumb mark was taken on this document, if he could put his signature. In view of this, according to defence, the document Exh.26 has been falsely fabricated just to show that accused No.1 had confessed to have beaten and ill-treated her on account of demand of money. For this it is pointed out that according to P.W.2 Govindrao he had come from Nagpur to village Kolwad on 2-6-1990 and then he had purchased a stamp paper of Rs.10/- on which Hamipatra was executed. However, Exh.46 reveals that the stamp paper was purchased by P.W.2 Govindrao on 31-5-1990, when, according to him, he was not present at Kolwad. For this it is pointed out that according to P.W.2 Govindrao he had come from Nagpur to village Kolwad on 2-6-1990 and then he had purchased a stamp paper of Rs.10/- on which Hamipatra was executed. However, Exh.46 reveals that the stamp paper was purchased by P.W.2 Govindrao on 31-5-1990, when, according to him, he was not present at Kolwad. It is contended that in view of this, it is not clear who had purchased the stamp paper on behalf of accused No.1. It is further contended that possibly this stamp paper was ante dated and later on the document was prepared. In view of the fact that the document does not bear signature of accused No.1 and his thumb was allegedly taken, even though he could put signature, some doubt is created about authenticity of this document. 8. For the sake of arguments, even if it is believed that Exh.46 was in fact, executed by accused No.1 on 3-6-1990, a question will arise whether the accused persons can be convicted for the offence punishable U/s.498A of the I.P.C. on the basis of confession made by accused No.1 in that document. That was a confession about some quarrel, demand of money and beating to Sunita on account of her failure to bring money about 9/10 months prior to execution of this document. Naturally, that incident relates to 3-9-1989 when Sunita had lodged the report with Police. Due to intervention of relatives from both the sides, the matter was suited out and the accused No.1 must have assured to give her good treatment in future and due to that assurance, she went to live with her husband. For the conviction in the present case for the offence U/s.498-A, I.P.C. it would be necessary for the prosecution to prove that after 3-6-90 till her death the accused persons had beaten or ill-treated her. If prosecution succeeds to give such evidence, then the conduct of the accused about their treatment to Sunita even prior to that date could be taken into consideration and Hamipatra ExhA6 could be used as a corroborative piece of evidence. However, in absence of any evidence about the cruelty after 3-6-1990, the accused persons cannot be convicted in the present case on the basis of confession made in the Hamipatra Exh.46. That document cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence for the present case. 9. However, in absence of any evidence about the cruelty after 3-6-1990, the accused persons cannot be convicted in the present case on the basis of confession made in the Hamipatra Exh.46. That document cannot be used as a substantive piece of evidence for the present case. 9. About the treatment given by the accused to Sunita after 3-6-1993, we have to peruse carefully the evidence of P.W.1 Sahebrao and P.W.2 Govindrao. According to P.W.1 Sahebrao after that, at the occasion of Nagpanchami festival he met Sunita. At that time Sunita was happy at her marital home. Thereafter, he went to house of the accused at the time of Mahalaxmi festival, which occurs some time in September, to take her to his house. According to him he stayed at the house of accused overnight. Next day morning he was to take Sunita to his house, however, because of her monthly periods, she could not be taken with him. However, he took accused No.1 to his house. Before leaving, he paid amount of Rs.40/- to Sunita and returned to his house alongwith accused No.1. On the way he purchased some cloth for making a frock for the child. In the evening accused No.1 took meals alongwith Sahebrao at his house and then he took the cloth and he returned to his house. Sahebrao deposed that at that time he had told accused No.1 not to quarrel with Sunita. This might be piece of advice, so that the husband and wife should continue to live peacefully. It is material to note that in his evidence Sahebrao nowhere deposed that during his visit to the house of accused at the occasion of Mahalaxmi festival, Sunita had made any grievance or complaint about any ill-treatment at the hands of husband or other in-laws. Thus, evidence of Sahebrao does not show any ill-treatment to Sunita after 3-6-1990. On the contrary, his evidence reveals that during his visit to Sunita on the occasion of Nagpanchami festival, she was happy at her marital home. 10. P.W.2 Govindrao admitted that after 3-6-1990 he had no meeting with Sunita. He also does not depose that there was any grievance or complaint from her about any ill-treatment at the hands of husband and other in-laws after 3-6-1990. 10. P.W.2 Govindrao admitted that after 3-6-1990 he had no meeting with Sunita. He also does not depose that there was any grievance or complaint from her about any ill-treatment at the hands of husband and other in-laws after 3-6-1990. P.W.2 deposed that after death of Sunita on 12-9-1990 he came to the village and then he came to know that Sunita had committed suicide because of harassment at the hands of accused because she could not bring amount of Rs.5,000/- from uncles. It is material to note that P.W.1 Sahebrao, who lodged report Exh.41 on 12-9-1990, did not depose anything about demand of Rs.5,000/- nor in the F.I.R. there was any reference to the demand of Rs.5,000/-. In his F.I.R. he had stated that he had come to know that on 10-9-1990, accused persons had beaten her and therefore, she had committed suicide. However, inquest panchanama Exh.42 and the post-mortem report Exh.44 clearly ruled out presence of any injury mark on the body of Sunita. 11. In view of the evidence noted above, it is clear that there is not an iota of evidence on record to prove that after 3-6-1990 the accused persons had beaten, ill-treated or subjected Sunita to cruelty. In view of this, the accused persons could not be convicted for the offence U/s.498-A merely on the basis of Hamipatra Exh.46 executed by accused No.1. It appears that learned trial Court treated Exh.46 as substantive piece of evidence while in fact, that was admission about certain incidents which had taken place 9/10 months prior to execution of that document and about that incident parties had compromised and as it is revealed in the evidence of P.W.1, after that agreement Sunita was living happily at her marital home. In such circumstances, it is difficult to imagine as to why she had committed suicide. As pointed out earlier, the learned trial Court had acquitted the accused persons for the offence U/s.304-B as well as U/s.306, I.P.c. and rightly so. I am unable to find any material to support and sustain the order of conviction for the offence punishable U/s.498-A of the I.P.C. Therefore, in my opinion, the conviction cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order of conviction for the offence U/s.498-A and sentence thereunder is hereby set aside. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is allowed. Impugned order of conviction for the offence U/s.498-A and sentence thereunder is hereby set aside. Accused are acquitted of the said charge.