JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 05.02.2005 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, (District and Sessions Judge) Chikodi, in Sessions Case No.257/2002 convicting he appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years each and pay fine of Rs.2,000/- each, default to under go simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Section 306 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment each and pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for an offence punishable under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 2. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased Sarita a was married to accused No. 1 on 09.05.1997 and after the marriage, when Sarita started living with her husband i.e., accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3, the deceased was subjected to harassment and ill treatment by demanding money and gold gantan. In this connection, he has beaten her and abused her and has not provided food to her, thereby, the conduct of the accused has abetted Sarita to commit suicide and to cause grievous injuries to her life or limbs, thereby the accused are alleged to have committed an offence under Section 498-A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. It is further alleged that between 21.02.2002 and 22.02.2002, the deceased being to tolerate the harassment and ill treatment, committed suicide by jumping into the Doodganga river at Sadalga and thereby the accused are alleged to have abetted the commission of suicide by Sarita, thereby they are charged for having committed an offence under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The prosecution in order to prove the case has examined as many as 26 witnesses and got marked to Exs.P-1 to P-21 and produced M.O.1 to M.O.11. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge pleased to convict the accused and sentenced them as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused have filed this appeal. 4. The defence of the accused was one of the total denial. However, by the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge pleased to convict the accused and sentenced them as herein before mentioned. The convicted accused have filed this appeal. 4. Heard Shri. J. Basavaraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants – accused and Shri. Anand Kumar Navalgimath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent – State. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of the relatives of the deceased and that no independent witnesses have been examined to support the prosecution case that the deceased had died. He further submits that there being no witnesses to prove that the deceased had jumped into the water voluntarily, it is possible that the deceased would have accidentally slipped into the river and had died. He submits that there are no specific overt acts alleged against the accused in respectof any ill-treatment or harassment meted out to the deceased and therefore the order of conviction is not based on the cogent evidence on record. There is no material on record to show that the deceased was subjected to ill treatment or harassment of such nature as is likely to drive her to commit suicide. Under the circumstances, he submits that the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. He further submits that in order to form an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, the accused should have either conspired or instigated or assisted in the commission of suicide by the deceased. In the present case, there is no such evidence to show that the accused has either conspired or instigated or assisted in the commission of suicide by the deceased and therefore the conviction for an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code is not based on the evidence on record. It is also submitted by him that there is no specific allegation of harassment by any of the individual accused and that the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the order of conviction may be set aside. 6. It is also submitted by him that there is no specific allegation of harassment by any of the individual accused and that the order of conviction is liable to be set aside. Hence, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the order of conviction may be set aside. 6. The learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submits that the evidence of the complainant – P.W.3 along with the evidence of P.Ws.6 and 7, who are the parents of the deceased and the evidence of P.W.8 – the sister of the deceased, clearly establish that the deceased was subjected to ill treatment regarding the demand for getting more gold and cash from the house of her parents. Therefore, the saidl ill treatment has resulted in her committing suicide and therefore he submits that the act of committing suicide by the deceased is a direct consequence of the ill treatment and harassment meted out to her by the accused. He submits that the order of conviction does not call for interference and that may be dismissed. 7. The prosecution in this case commenced with the filing of the complaint by the brother of the deceased Nandakumar before the Sadalga Police Station, on 22.02.2002. In the complaint, it is stated that the complainant is the resident of Khadakalat village of Chikkodi Taluk. He is residing with his parents and his sisters namely Veena, Nayana, Sadhana and also Sarita. All the four sisters are married. Marriage of Sarita had taken place with the accused No.1 – Datta Babu Gadakari, on 09.05.1997 according to Hindu Rites. His sister Sarita was living happily with her husband for about one year along with her parents-in-law. Thereafter, the deceased was made to keep fasting and was assaulted by the accused and she was further pressurised to bring the money and jewels and they were threatening to kill her, if she were not bring the cash. Thereafter, a panchayat was concerned and in the panchayat, the accused were advised to look after Sarita well. In the mean time, Sarita got two children by name Shubam and Shweta who are aged about 3½ years and 1½ years respectively. Even after the delivery of the children, Sarita was meted out with inhuman ill treatment. She came to his house being unable to tolerate the harassment. In the mean time, Sarita got two children by name Shubam and Shweta who are aged about 3½ years and 1½ years respectively. Even after the delivery of the children, Sarita was meted out with inhuman ill treatment. She came to his house being unable to tolerate the harassment. Thereafter, again panchayat was called and again her husband and his parents were advised and Sarita was again sent to her parent’s house. While so going to the house of her husband, they had given mangalya chain and one gantan chain. However, her parents-in-law and husband were ill treating her by saving that the gold is fake and that it is of less weight. About 15 days prior to the date of the complaint, again a jewel weighing about 20 grams was given by her mother to Sarita by going to her house at Sadalga. Even at that time Sarita was informing that the ill treatment is continuing. Nevertheless his mother has pacified her. On 21.02.2002 at about 6.00 p.m., it was informed over phone by the accused No.1 Datta Babu Gadakari, that Sarita has disappeared along with the two children. Thereafter, they went to Sadalga and made enquiries. However his sister and the children were not traced. Hence, they returned back to their village. On the next day, when they went again to Sadalga, two chappals were found near the river bank and when they searched the dead bodies of his sister Sarita and her two children were found in the river at about 12.00 noon. He has stated in the complaint that the accused No.1 husband and his parents had given mental and physical cruelty to his sister and therefore being angry she has gone and had committed suicide after killing both her children. Hence, he requested for taking action. 8. The Sadalga Police on receipt of the above complaint, registered a case in the Crime No.23/2002 on 22.02.2002 for the offence under Section 498-A and also for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 9. During the trial, out of the 26 witness examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 and P.W.21 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 10. On completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed for the offence punishable under Section 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. 9. During the trial, out of the 26 witness examined by the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 and P.W.21 have turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. 10. P.Ws.20, 22, 24 and P.W.26 are Police officials, who have conducted the investigation. 11. P.W.25 is the Tahsildar, who has held the inquest proceedings and P.W.23 is the Doctor, who was conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased. 12. P.W.3 is the complainant. He has stated as per the version in the complaint and it is in the evidence that the accused were abusing the deceased and were assaulting her saving that the weight of gold brought by her is very less and that its quality is not proper. He has stated that his sister disappeared on 21.02.2002 and that she has committed suicide being unable to tolerate the ill treatment and harassment given by the accused Ex. P5 is the complaint given by him. It is in his evidence that 15 days prior of the death of the deceased, his mother had given gold ornaments to the deceased. In the cross examination, it is elicited that the deceased and the accused were coming for a function in the house and that the accused is an agriculturist. The children Shubam and Swetha were born in their own house and the accused No.1 had come for the cradling ceremony along with the sister Kavita. After the birth of both the children the deceased and accused were coming to the house occasionally. Sarita had studied up to 12th standard and she was able to write letters. In the said letter, she was written that she was well and it is suggested that Sarita was looked after in the house of her husband with love and affection and that no ill treatment or harassment has given to her, while she was living in the house of her husband, but the said suggestion has been denied by P.W.3. It further suggested that the deceased Santa might have accidentally slipped into the river and that she has not committed suicide as alleged by the complainant. 13. It further suggested that the deceased Santa might have accidentally slipped into the river and that she has not committed suicide as alleged by the complainant. 13. P.W.4 – Smt. Madhavi Madhukar Ghatage is a signatory to the inquest proceedings, which are Exs.P.6, P-7 and P-8, in respect of the deceased mother and two children respectively. 14. P.W.5 – Balasaheb Basappa Mudashe, is a signatory to Ex.P-9, under which the Police have seized one gold jewel which was weighing about 27 grams. 15. P.W.6 – Shankar Krishna Patil, is the father of the deceased. He has stated that the marriage of his daughter had taken place in May 1997 with the accused No.1. He has stated that the deceased had informed him that the accused were ill treating and harassing her and they were demanding gold and cash from her parents house. They had gone to the house of the accused and had advised the accused not to harass their daughter. It is further stated by him that the accused were telling the deceased that if she does not bring the gold and cash, she can fall into the water or in a river and die. Again they went and had panchayath and advised the accused to treat his daughter properly. Again his daughter complained about the ill treatment and harassment given by the accused and in June 2001, the deceased daughter came to their house. Thereafter, again a panchayath was held. Later, he was informed that the deceased is missing, where after when they searched, dead body of his daughter and her two children was found in the riverbank. He has stated that the deceased had committed suicide because of the harassment meted out to her by the accused. In the cross-examination, it is suggested that the deceased might have accidentally slipped into the river water and that she has not committed suicide. It is also suggested that the deceased had gone to bring water and her two children, who were closely attached to her had accompanied her to the river and on seeing that their mother falling into the water, they also had fallen accidentally. 16. P.W.7 – Smt. Parvati Shankar Patil, is the mother of the deceased. It is also suggested that the deceased had gone to bring water and her two children, who were closely attached to her had accompanied her to the river and on seeing that their mother falling into the water, they also had fallen accidentally. 16. P.W.7 – Smt. Parvati Shankar Patil, is the mother of the deceased. She has also stated regarding ill treatment given by the accused in connection with the gold and cash brought by the deceased at the time of the marriage with the accused No.1. 17. P.W.8 – Meena bajeerao Nikkam, is the sister of the deceased. Her evidence is similar to that of P.Ws.3, 6 and 7. 18. P.W.9-Bacharam Ganapati Sandugade, has signed Ex.P.5, who is the scribe of Ex.P-5, which is in Marathi, Ex.P-5(b) is his signature. 19. P.W.10 – Shivaji Krishna Patil, is the brother of P.W.6 – the father of the deceased. His version is similarly to that of P.W.6 with regard to the ill treatment or harassment said to have been meted out to the deceased in the house of the accused after her marriage with the accused No.1. 20. P.W.11 – Appasab Babu Harale, is a panch member, who has intervened in the marital life of the deceased with the accused No.1 and had advised the accused not to harass the deceased. In the cross-examination, he has admitted that he is relative of the complainant. Further he has stated that he has not gone to the house of the deceased for one year after the marriage and that he will not come to know as to what exactly is happening in the house of others nor others will come to know about the happenings in his house. He also canny v many times deceased has come to the house of P.Ws.6 and 7 - the parents of the deceased. 21. P.W.12 - Sadhana Subas Letakar, is the sister of the deceased, whose evidence is similar to the evidence of the parents of the deceased. 22. P.W.13 - Balu Babu Todakar, is the brother of P.W.7 - the mother of the deceased and he is the maternal uncle of the deceased. He has assisted in removal of the dad bodies from the river. 23. P.W.14 -Ashok Dhondibha Jadhav has stated that Sarita had informed him that the accused were not leaking after her well. However, his evidence hearsay in nature. 24. He has assisted in removal of the dad bodies from the river. 23. P.W.14 -Ashok Dhondibha Jadhav has stated that Sarita had informed him that the accused were not leaking after her well. However, his evidence hearsay in nature. 24. P.W.18 – Sanjay Sadashiv Patil, was present at the time of inquest proceedings conducted by the Tahsildar and has assisted in searching for the dead body of he deceased. 25. P.W. 19 - Nagangouda Channagouda Ngangoudar, is also another witness who has assisted in the removal of the dead bodies from the river. 26. P.W.23 - Dr. Prakash Veerappa Wali, has stated that he conducted postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased and stated that the death is due to the asphyxia, as a result of drowning. 27. P.W 26 - Kempanna Basappa Kudachi, is the C.P.I who has conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet. 28. On a careful perusal of the entire material on record, it is seen that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is only that of the close relative of the deceased including parents, brothers, sisters and maternal uncle. None of the neighbours either of the complainant or the accused have been examined to support the version that the deceased was subjected to ill treatment and harassment. 29. It is further seen that the evidence adduced by the prosecution does not bring in the ingredients of offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and that nowhere it is stated that the accused has conspired or instigated or assisted the deceased in the commission of her suicide. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to hold that accused have committed offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, they are entitled for an order of acquittal for the said offence. However, so far as the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, there is evidence adduced by the prosecution to show that the deceased was harassed and ill treated in the house of the accused. Since the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is committed within four walls of the house, it is too much to expect independent witness. Since the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is committed within four walls of the house, it is too much to expect independent witness. In this regard, a married woman would be hesitating to disclose the situation in the house of her husband to outsiders and that she will be disclosing the facts only to her brothers, sisters and parents. In this case, all the witnesses connected with the life of the deceased have stated that she was harassed by the accused for money and gold and that she was being insulted regarding the quality of the gold ornaments and also the weight of the ornament brought by her from her parents house. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order of conviction for an offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is based on the evidence on record and therefore, the said conviction does not call for interference. 30. I have gone through the judgment of the trial Court and the reasoning assigned by the learned Sessions Judge to convict the accused. The reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge for conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are not based on the evidence on record. More particularly, there is a doubt as to whether the deceased has slipped into the water and that her children had followed her or that she herself has jumped into the water. When two views are possible and both are equally plausible, the one, which is beneficial to the accused, has to be given effect. 31. On consideration of this settled principle of law, I hold that the accused are not guilty of the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and they are acquitted of the said offence. 32. So far as the sentence for the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, is seen that the accused were in custody for one month at the time of their first arrest and that having regard to the long lapse of time, it is advisable to send the accused to custody again. Particularly, having regard to the fact that the accused No.2 was aged about 60 years in the year 2002 and accused No.3 aged about 45 years. Particularly, having regard to the fact that the accused No.2 was aged about 60 years in the year 2002 and accused No.3 aged about 45 years. Therefore, both of them are now in the old age of their life. It is further seen that the accused No.1 has to look after them and even he has lost his wife – deceased and two children, which itself is a great loss for him in life. Under the circumstances, sentences of imprisonment imposed on the appellants are hereby modified to the period already undergone by them for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A of the Indian Penal Code while keeping the fine intact for the said offences. Since the accused are deemed to have already undergone the sentence they need not surrender before the Court for serving any sentence imposed on them. The bail bonds of the appellants-accused are hereby discharged. Fine amount, if any deposited for the offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, is directed to be refunded to them. The appeal is partly allowed.