Judgment : 1. The appeal is filed against the judgment and order of Sessions Case No. 43/1994, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna. The Sessions Court has convicted and sentenced all the appellants for offence punishable under section 498-A r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code. Appellant No. 1 is convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of I.P.C. also. Both the sides are heard. 2. In short, facts leading to the institution of the appeal, can be stated as follows:- The deceased was a sister of complainant Sudhakar. The deceased was given in marriage to accused No. 1 about 3 years prior to the date of incident. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are parents of accused No. 1, husband of the deceased and all the accused were living together, where the deceased cohabited with accused No. 1. 3. After one year of the marriage, the accused started saying that the deceased was infertile, she was black in complexion, she was suffering from tuberculosis (for short "T.B.") and she was not able to cook food. They started asking the deceased to bring Rs. 4,000/- from her parents as dowry. The accused were giving threats that they would perform second marriage of accused No. 1, if their demand was not met with. They were not providing sufficient food to the deceased, they were beating to the deceased and they were mentally harassing the deceased on aforesaid counts. 4. About six months prior to the date of incident, accused drove the deceased out of the house and they sent her back to her parents house. They had warned her to bring Rs. 4,000/-, which was demanded by them. The deceased disclosed about ill-treatment and the demand to the complainant and other relatives. As accused No. 2 had asked the complainant to get done the medical check up of the deceased as he was suspecting that the deceased was suffering from T.B., the complainant took the deceased to two doctors. Doctors declared that the deceased had no T.B. The complainant then reached the deceased to matrimonial house and somehow convinced the accused to accept her back in matrimonial house. The complainant promised them to met their demand after some time. 5. After resumption of cohabitation of the deceased, the complainant learnt from one Bapurao of village Ghodegaon that there was still illtreatment to the deceased. The complainant promised them to met their demand after some time. 5. After resumption of cohabitation of the deceased, the complainant learnt from one Bapurao of village Ghodegaon that there was still illtreatment to the deceased. The complainant then went to the house of accused to convince them to behave well. Accused No. 1 was present in the house and he picked up quarrel with the complainant and he gave threat of life also. On that occasion, accused No. 1 expressed that he wanted to marry second wife. 6. On 21.7.1993 the deceased was working in the field of one Dattu Naik. At about 4.00 p.m. the deceased Kalindi started vomitting, so the employer realized that she had consumed poison. The employer sent the deceased back to her matrimonial house. She died on the same day in the evening. Initially A.D. was registered. The complainant and other relatives then went to the house of accused. After funeral of the dead body was over, report came to be given on 23.7.1993. The complainant learnt in the village of the accused that on 21.7.1999 accused No. 1 had given beating to Kalindi. He had noticed some blunt injuries on the dead body. 7. The post mortem was conducted on the dead body and viscera was sent to C.A. office. Endosulfan, organochloro insecticide (poison) was detected in the viscera. One bottle was recovered from the field of Dattu Naik and in that bottle, the same poison was detected. Police recorded statements of some villagers from the village of accused and statements of some relatives of deceased on parent's side also came to be recorded. These witnesses were examined before Trial Court. 8. The Trial Court believed the complainant and the relatives of the complainant. The Trial Court has held that blunt injuries found on the dead body during inquest are sufficient to infer that the beating was given to the deceased on that day and then she committed suicide. The Trial Court has held that there is sufficient evidence to prove that there was the demand of Rs. 4,000/-from the side of accused and on that count, there was harassment to the deceased. The Trial Court has held that the accused had suspicion that deceased had T.B. and on that count also, there was harassment to the deceased. 9. The record shows that inquest panchanama, P.M. report, spot panchanama etc. 4,000/-from the side of accused and on that count, there was harassment to the deceased. The Trial Court has held that the accused had suspicion that deceased had T.B. and on that count also, there was harassment to the deceased. 9. The record shows that inquest panchanama, P.M. report, spot panchanama etc. were admitted by defence in the Trial Court. Arguments were advanced that there is possibility that the deceased consumed insecticide by mistake. After going through the record which is admitted, it can be said that there is no force in this submission. 10. Witness Ramkishan (PW No. 2) was working in the same field on that day. Though he has turned hostile, some evidence with regard to the incident noticed by him, of consuming poison by the deceased, can be safely accepted. He has avoided to give evidence on illtreatment which the accused were giving and about which he had information. He has deposed that on that day when they noticed that deceased had vomitting, they went near her and then they had smell of poison. He has deposed that they sent the deceased back to the house of her husband. The panchanama at Exh. 57 shows that from a shed from this field, a tin of Endosulfan was recovered. The same insecticide was detected in viscera which can be seen from C.A. report at Exh. 60. The tin was also containing the same poison. The deceased used to work in the field, so it cannot be said that the deceased could have committed mistake in drinking the contents of the tin having label of the poison. She was required to go to the shed of the employer for collecting poison. Thus, no probability is created by any circumstance that the poison was consumed due to mistake. This record and the P.M. report is sufficient to prove that the deceased had consumed poison to commit suicide. 11. The evidence on cruelty as defined in section 498-A of I.P.C. is of the nature of disclosures made by the deceased. There is also direct evidence given by complainant about one incident in which accused No. 1 was involved. This record and the P.M. report is sufficient to prove that the deceased had consumed poison to commit suicide. 11. The evidence on cruelty as defined in section 498-A of I.P.C. is of the nature of disclosures made by the deceased. There is also direct evidence given by complainant about one incident in which accused No. 1 was involved. Sudhakar (PW No. 1) has deposed that after one year of the marriage, ill-treatment was started to the deceased and he learnt from the deceased that accused No. 2 used to say that they would perform the second marriage of accused No. 1. He has deposed that the deceased used to complain that they were beating her and accused No. 3 was scolding her. He has deposed that the deceased was complaining that accused were making allegations that she had T.B. and so they wanted to perform second marriage of accused No. 1. 12. The complainant Sudhakar (PW No. 1) has further deposed that due to the aforesaid allegations of the accused, he took the deceased to Dr. Saboo and Dr. Muthiyan for examination. He has deposed that these doctors gave opinion that the deceased had no T.B. Though no record in respect of examination done by these two doctors is produced, if the deceased was really suffering from T.B. as per the information of the accused, they would have also produced such record to create probability in their favour. The complainant has deposed that after the medical examination, he reached the deceased to matrimonial house, but the illtreatment was continued by the accused. He has deposed that when he went to the house of accused No. 1 to convince him, accused No. 1 gave abuses to him and even rushed at him. Some other allegations are made by the complainant. As those allegations are not mentioned in the F.I.R., there is no need to discuss that part of the evidence. 13. PW No. 1 has deposed that when he went to the village of accused after learning about the incident and when he saw the dead body, he noticed injuries on the dead body. He has deposed that accused No. 1 had demanded Rs. 4,000/- as dowry and as the demand was not met with by him, there was ill-treatment to the deceased. The report at Exh. He has deposed that accused No. 1 had demanded Rs. 4,000/- as dowry and as the demand was not met with by him, there was ill-treatment to the deceased. The report at Exh. 64 is proved in his evidence and it is consistent with material points of the substantive evidence. 14. The incident took place on 21.7.1993 and Kalindi died on the same day. Inquest report at Exh. 56 was prepared on 22.7.1993. The inquest report shows that the dead body was identified by complainant. It shows that inquest was prepared in A.D. and the A.D. was registered as 19/1993 on the basis of report of accused No. 2. The P.M. report at Exh. 60 shows that it was completed at 10.00 p.m. on 22.7.1993. After the P.M. the funeral was performed. The F.I.R. was given on 23.7.1993 at 8.30 a.m. In view of these circumstances, it cannot be said that delay was caused in giving the report by the complainant. Evidence is given by the complainant that he was informed about the incident on 22.7.1993 and no information was given to him on 21.7.1993. This substantive evidence is consistent with the aforesaid circumstances. 15. Ramkrishna (PW No. 4) and Subhash (PW No. 7) are cousins of the complainant. They have given evidence that after one and half years of the marriage, the deceased had started disclosing about the illtreatment. They have given evidence that they learnt from the deceased that there was demand of Rs. 4,000/-. They learnt that accused were making allegations that deceased was suffering from T.B. and that the deceased was not able to cook food. PW No. 4 has admitted in the cross examination that he did not disclose about the aforesaid information received from the deceased to anybody. His evidence further shows that he had met the deceased lastly about one year prior to the incident of suicide and the deceased had made disclosure to him only once. PW No. 7 has admitted in the cross examination that for about 2 years, there was no ill-treatment to the deceased. He has deposed that when the deceased was brought to parent's house 5 to 6 months prior to the incident, there was disclosure. It can be said that there is little bit inconsistency in the evidence given by these two witnesses on one side and complainant on other. He has deposed that when the deceased was brought to parent's house 5 to 6 months prior to the incident, there was disclosure. It can be said that there is little bit inconsistency in the evidence given by these two witnesses on one side and complainant on other. Kalindi would have disclosed about the ill-treatment only to her near and dears like complainant. Even if the evidence of these two witnesses is ignored, there is sufficient evidence against the accused No. 1, which is given by the complainant. 16. The deceased had no issue even after three years of the marriage. The evidence of complainant shows that accused No. 1 wanted to marry second wife. As the deceased was having no issue and as there is the evidence that accused No. 1 wanted to marry second wife, it can be said that, that was the main grievance of accused No. 1. In view of these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve PW No. 1 complainant. In view of the nature of evidence given by PW No. 1 that he had taken the deceased to two doctors, whose names are given, it can be safely accepted that there was allegation from the accused that the deceased had T.B. The circumstance that the deceased was doing labour work in the field of other person at the relevant time and the P.M. report shows that the dead body was well nourished, it is difficult to believe that the deceased was suffering from T.B. 17. Complainant has given evidence that there was demand of Rs. 4,000/- and accused No. 1 was insisting for the same. He has described one incident which took place in the house of accused No. 1 in which accused No. 1 had rushed at him. In view of the nature of evidence, which appears to be natural, this Court sees no reason to disbelieve the finding of the Trial Court. The Trial Court has believed PW No. 1 and due to the aforesaid circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere in this finding given by the Trial Court. 18. The inquest report at Exh. 56 shows that old scars of injuries caused due to assault on abdomen, ankles and back were found on dead body and they were blunt injury marks. 18. The inquest report at Exh. 56 shows that old scars of injuries caused due to assault on abdomen, ankles and back were found on dead body and they were blunt injury marks. Though all these injuries are not mentioned in the P.M. report, the P.M. report shows that there was scab formation over right elbow and there was boil burst open over right forearm. This record is admitted by the defence. Accused No. 1 has not given explanation about these injuries. The complainant has expressed his suspicion on the basis of information received by him and these injuries, that on that day accused No. 1 had given beating to the deceased. The Trial Court has believed this evidence also and this Court sees no reason to interfere in this finding also. Such injuries cannot be caused due to brushing of the body, which can happen after consumption of poison. In view of provisions of section 114 of the Evidence Act, the burden was on accused No. 1 to offer some explanation in respect of these injuries. There is one more circumstance against him that no attempt was made to save the life of the deceased, no doctor was called to see her and nothing is said as to why Kalindi was not shifted to any dispensary or hospital. These circumstances are sufficient to infer that the conduct of the husband was 'wilful' as defined in section 498-A of I.P.C. 19. The deceased committed suicide within seven years of the marriage. There is aforesaid evidence on ill-treatment and that falls within the definition given in section 498-A of I.P.C. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court holds that the presumption under section 113-A of the Evidence Act needs to be drawn in this case and it needs to be presumed that the suicide was abetted by accused No. 1. This Court has no hesitation to hold that there is sufficient evidence to prove the offences punishable under section 498-A and 306 of I.P.C. as against the accused No. 1, husband. 20. For State, the case reported as 2007 CRI.L.J. 2770 [Anand Mohan Sen & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal] was cited. In this reported case on facts, it was held that it was necessary to use section 113-A of the Evidence Act. In another case reported as 1995 CRI.L.J. 96 [Naresh Marotrao Sakhre and Anr. Vs. 20. For State, the case reported as 2007 CRI.L.J. 2770 [Anand Mohan Sen & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal] was cited. In this reported case on facts, it was held that it was necessary to use section 113-A of the Evidence Act. In another case reported as 1995 CRI.L.J. 96 [Naresh Marotrao Sakhre and Anr. Vs. Union of India and others] the Bombay High Court held that section 306 of I.P.C. is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of Constitution of India. There is no dispute over the propositions made in the two cases. 21. For accused, the case reported as AIR 2001 SC 3837 (1) [Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chattisgarh] was cited. In this case, the Apex Court has laid down that the presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act is not mandatory presumption and it is to be drawn, having regard to "all other circumstances of the case". The Apex Court has further held that term "all other circumstances of the case" requires cause and effect relationship between cruelty and suicide to be established before drawing the presumption. It is further held by the Apex Court that this presumption is rebuttable in nature. There cannot be any dispute over this proposition also. This Court has considered "all other circumstances of the case" and on facts, has come to the conclusion that the presumption under section 113-A of Evidence Act needs to be drawn atleast as against accused No. 1 in the present case. 22. To find out the complicity of accused Nos. 2 and 3, parents of husband of the deceased, same standards which are used against the husband cannot be used. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and the provisions of law, it can be said that it is the husband, who in first place, must explain the things like injuries found on the dead body of his wife. In our society, unless the husband is involved, there cannot be the demand of dowry or other articles. In view of the nature of our society, the husband becomes primarily responsible to take care of his wife as she is totally depending for everything on him. When the wife cannot give him a child for a period of three years, it is up to him to take decision and it is he, who can say that whether he wants to marry second wife. When the wife cannot give him a child for a period of three years, it is up to him to take decision and it is he, who can say that whether he wants to marry second wife. In our society, it has become practice to blame only the wife, when she does not conceive child for such a period and nobody goes for even medical examination to see as to whether the fault is with husband. In view of these circumstances and the practice of our society, it becomes necessary for the husband to behave properly. When no explanation is given from him, in such a case, he gives scope to the Court for drawing aforesaid presumption against him. It needs to be said that the things which need to be explained are especially within his knowledge as provided under section 106 of Evidence Act. So in our society in a case like present one, the presumption can be safely drawn against the husband, but the overtacts of the relatives of husband like the parents need to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. This is because there is the tendency in our society to rope in all the relatives of the husband and in-laws in such a case. If the Courts do not take proper care to ascertain the truth, there will be always possibility of conviction of innocent relatives and innocent in-laws for the fault of husband. 23. This Court has discussed the evidence given as against the accused Nos. 2 and 3. In view of nature of evidence as against them and after comparing it with the evidence given as against accused No. 1, this Court holds that there is no sufficient evidence to prove overtacts of accused Nos. 2 and 3 beyond reasonable doubts. This Court holds that accused Nos. 2 and 3 are entitled to benefit of doubt. Thus, their appeal deserves to be allowed. 24. So the appeal of appellants Nos. 2 and 3 is allowed and the judgment and order of conviction of the Trial Court given against them for offence punishable under section 498-A r/w. 34 of I.P.C. is hereby set aside. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 stand acquitted of this offence also and their bail bonds stand cancelled. The appeal of the appellant No. 1, the husband, stands dismissed. He is to surrender his bail bonds for undergoing sentence.