Judgment : 1. In Sessions Case No. 331 of 1996, the accused were charged for the offence punishable under Sections 498A, 306 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. for their acts of ill-treatment over dowry related demands and abetment to commit suicide to three deceased daughter-in-laws namely; Mandabai w/o Kailash Choudhari, Sumanbai w/o Subhash Choudhari and Lalitabai w/o Sanjay Choudhari. All accused have been convicted for the offences charged. 2. The conviction, which is ordered, is as follows : All accused are sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/each, for the offence punishable under Section 306 r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. and they are also sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.300/each, for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w Sec. 34 of I.P.C. 3. Criminal Appeal Nos. 219 of 1999 and 241 of 1999 have been preferred by the accused against the conviction and sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 435 of 1999 is an appeal by the State against the lenient sentence by the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad. 4. The accused are aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, hence these Criminal Appeal Nos. 219 of 1999 and 241 of 1999. 5. Points which are argued in support of Criminal Appeal Nos. 219 of 1999 and 241 of 1999 are in summary as follows: [i] The impugned judgment suffers from errors of appreciation of evidence. [ii] Findings as regards abetment to suicide is rendered without evidence. [iii] Findings that accused are guilty of offence punishable under Section 498A of I.P.C. are rendered in absence of evidence as regards cruelty or ill-treatment to be of such nature that such treatment would drive over to commit suicide. [iv] Seen from any angle, the facts constituting ill-treatment/ cruelty is not proved. 6. Heard both the parties. Perused the record. 7. Prosecution has relied upon the evidence of following witnesses: [1] Exh.60PW 1 Laxman s/o Gulchand Mahor (father of the deceased Lalitabai) complainant; [2] Exh.62 PW 2 Kunjilal s/o Narayan Jharwal (father of deceased Mandabai); [3] Exh.64 PW 3 Dhropadabai w/o Kunjilal Jharwal (mother of deceased Mandabai); [4] Exh.65PW 4 Dr. 6. Heard both the parties. Perused the record. 7. Prosecution has relied upon the evidence of following witnesses: [1] Exh.60PW 1 Laxman s/o Gulchand Mahor (father of the deceased Lalitabai) complainant; [2] Exh.62 PW 2 Kunjilal s/o Narayan Jharwal (father of deceased Mandabai); [3] Exh.64 PW 3 Dhropadabai w/o Kunjilal Jharwal (mother of deceased Mandabai); [4] Exh.65PW 4 Dr. Ambadas s/o Daulat Paigavan (Medical Officer); [5] Exh.77PW 5 Sumanbai w/o Laxman Mahore (mother of deceased Lalitabai); [6] Exh.78PW 6 Kamalbai w/o Deovhand Mahor (aunt of deceased Lalita); [7] Exh.79PW 7 Raju s/o Kunjilal Jharwal (brother of deceased Mandabai); [8] Exh.81PW 8 Girdhar s/o Kisan Khairnar; [9] Exh.82PW 9 Ramesh s/o Baburao Patil; [10] Exh.84 PW 10 Sarabai w/o Vithoba Matare (mother of deceased Sumanbai); [11] Exh.86 PW 11 Balu s/o Bhairao Patil (panch witness of inquest panchnama of three deadbodies– Exh.87, 88 & 89); [12] Exh.90 PW 12 Amrut s/o Supdu Patil (panch witness on spot as well seizure panchnama); [13] Exh.97 PW 13 Devidas s/o Manik Patil (panch witness on spot as well seizure panchnama); [14] Exh.125 PW 14 Chandrakant Haribhau Shinde (Chemical Analyzer); [15] Exh.129 PW 15 Dhanraj s/o Baliram Sonwane (Police Patil of village Banoti); [16] Exh.132 PW 16 Dinkar s/o Shankarrao Nikam (P.S.O., who registered the complaint Exh. 61); [17] Exh.133 PW 17 Sambaji s/o Ukhardu Koli (carrier of muddemal to C.A.); [18] Exh.135 PW 18 Ramaji s/o Khanduji Raut (I.O. who initially investigated the crime);and; [19] Exh.145 PW 19 Rajendra s/o Dagdu Murkute (I.O. who subsequently investigated the crime and filed chargesheet). 8. The witnesses relied on by the prosecution on the point of the dowry related demand and as regards cruelty to the deceased persons, are as follows: (i) As to deceased Lalitabai are PW 1 Laxman s/o Gulchand Mahor, PW 5 Sumanbai w/o Laxman Mahore and PW 6 Kamalbai w/o Deochand Mahor; (ii) As to deceased Mandabai are PW 2 Kunjilal s/o Narayan Jharwal and PW 3 Dhropadabai w/o Kunjilal Jharwal; (iii)As to deceased Sumanbai are PW 6 Kamalbai w/o Deochand Mahor, PW 7 Raju s/o Kunjilal Jharwal and PW 10 Sarabai w/o Vithoba Matare. 9. All other witnesses pertain to the panchnamas, Chemical Analyser report, registration of F.I.R. and investigation. 10. Now this Court has to discuss testimony of these witnesses. 11. This case has a sad background. Wives of accused Nos. 9. All other witnesses pertain to the panchnamas, Chemical Analyser report, registration of F.I.R. and investigation. 10. Now this Court has to discuss testimony of these witnesses. 11. This case has a sad background. Wives of accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 i.e. Mandabai w/o Kailash, Sumanbai w/o Subhash and Lalitabai w/o Sanjay died at one place. All three had consumed poison an insecticide. Consumption of poison being the cause of death is proved. 12. The prosecution witnesses are relied upon to prove the dowry related demand and cruelty in context with different deceased. Evidence in this regard is discussed in following paras. 1. As regards deceased Lalita : (a) Version of PW 1 Laxman in relation to ill-treatment/ cruelty contained in paragraph No.5 of his deposition, reads as follows: “5. I made enquiry from my daughter Lalita. My daughter informed me that accused Hiralal was demanding Rs.50,000/for construction of the house. Accused Hiralal directed my daughter to bring paid amount from her parents. My daughter told him due to poor financial condition her parents could not pay said amount. As my daughter failed to give amount as per demand all the accused started ill-treating my daughter. They used to abuse my daughter. They used to beat my daughter. I came to know all these facts from my daughter. I assured my daughter that I would sell one acre of land and would pay the amount to the accused. My field could not be sold. In the mean time I sent my daughter to the house of the accused.” (Quoted from page No. 249 of the paper-book) (b) PW 5 is wife of PW 1 and mother of deceased Lalita. She has stated in relation to dowry related demand in slightly different language. She has reiterated the version given by PW 1 as regards the demand. In relation to ill-treatment, she has stated as follows: “6. After two months, accused Sanjay came to my house to take back to Lalita. As the accused were ill-treating my daughter, I tried to convince accused Sanjay. He assured before me that hence forth he would not ill-treat my daughter. Therefore, I sent my daughter Lalita with him.” (Quoted from page No. 347 of the paper-book) (c) PW 5 and 6 gave the same version relating to dowry related demand. 13. As the accused were ill-treating my daughter, I tried to convince accused Sanjay. He assured before me that hence forth he would not ill-treat my daughter. Therefore, I sent my daughter Lalita with him.” (Quoted from page No. 347 of the paper-book) (c) PW 5 and 6 gave the same version relating to dowry related demand. 13. As regards deceased Mandabai: (a) PW 2 and 3 are spouses and were parents of deceased Mandabai wife of accused Kailash. In relation to dowry related demand, PW 2 Kunjilal Jharwal has narrated on what his daughter Mandbai told him. Version in that regard reads as follows: “2......My daughter told me that her father in law, her mother in law, her husband and her brother-in-law directed her to bring Rs.15000/from her parents for the construction of the house.” (Quoted from page Nos. 264 of the paper-book) (b) The version of PW 3 is more or less same. As regards ill-treatment is concerned, this witness has stated as follows : “.... My daughter informed me that for the demand of money, all the accused used to beat her......” (Quoted from page Nos. 264 & 265 of the paper-book) (c) PW 7 is brother of Mandabai and he confirms the version of dowry related demand, proved by PW 2 and 3. 14. As regards deceased Sumanbai:(a) PW 10 Sarabai w/o Vithoba Matare is mother of deceased Sumanbai. She states relating to dowry related demand in paragraph No.2 of her deposition, which reads as follows: “2. All the accused used to say her to bring money from her parents for purchasing articles in hotel. 4 months prior to death of Sumanbai, accused Hiralal had been to my house. He demanded Rs.10,000/- from myself. He wanted said amount for construction of house. We did not pay amount to him. We told him that we had no money. On the same day, he left my house under anger. We requested him to stay in my house. But he did not listen us.” (Quoted from page No. 392 of the paper-book) (b) In relation to ill-treatment, PW 10 Sarabai w/o Vithoba Matare has stated in paragraph No. 3 of the deposition, which reads as follows: “3. At the time of Akhaji festival, I sent my son Govinda to bring Sumanbai. Sumanbai came to my house along with Govinda. She stayed in my house for about 1 ½ months. At the time of Akhaji festival, I sent my son Govinda to bring Sumanbai. Sumanbai came to my house along with Govinda. She stayed in my house for about 1 ½ months. She told me that all accused used to ill-treat her. She also told that her father in law had been to me for demanding money. But as I did not give money to him, the accused were ill-treating to her. She said me that the accused told her that they would not keep Sumanbai in their house. She requested me not to send to the house of the accused, due to ill-treatment.” (Quoted from page Nos.392 & 393 of the paper-book) 15. After considering the evidence of witnesses relating to dowry related demand and ill-treatment, the dowry related demand is proved by the witnesses. The prosecution however does not have any independent corroboration of the said evidence. 16. In so far as the aspect of ill-treatment is concerned, even if each sentence and word uttered by these witnesses is considered to be factual, even then the accusation is in the nature of utterance of adjectives. The objective description of what was the ill-treatment and as to how the daughter-in-laws were dealt with, is not narrated. The nature and extent of ill-treatment or cruelty to be of such nature and extent that they would be driven to commit suicide is not narrated. 17. It is obvious that three young daughter-in-laws gathered together in a house which is under construction. Their desire to die was immense and intense. They came together, join in a common intention, consumed poison and died on the spot. This fact definitely shows that the things around them were grossly wrong. 18. However, for fastening the criminal liability and making the accused persons responsible for criminal liability towards the death of these three young ladies, the prosecution has to prove: (i) The nature and extent of cruelty to be of such a nature that the person who is subjected, would be thereby driven to commit suicide; (ii) Cruelty by accused to three deceased daughter-in-laws over dowry related demands is to be proved so as to attract Section 498A of I.P.C. 19. In any case and eventuality, the acts of the accused persons which constitute abetment of suicide, the cruelty and ill-treatment of the nature and extent that thereby the daughter-in-laws were driven to commit suicide have to be proved without exception. 20. Death of three young daughter-in-laws of a family may surely shocks the conscience of the Court. Yet the shock or sadness which would follow does not and should not be the foundation, for arriving at the conclusion that the accused are guilty. The conviction has to be impelled by unrefutable proof of ingredients of offence. The evidence brought by the prosecution is full of suggestions only. It does not comprise of even smallest piece of evidence of the acts of accused which shall constitute the offence. Sentiments cannot have any role in the matter of conviction. 21. In the result, the judgment and order of conviction of accused cannot be sustained. The accused are liable to be acquitted and State appeal against sentence must fail. Hence following order. (A) Criminal Appeal No. 435 of 1999 filed by the State is dismissed. (B) Criminal Appeal Nos. 219 of 1999 and 241 of 1999 filed by the accused are allowed. The impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence under appeals are set aside. The accused are acquitted. Fine amount, if any, deposited by the accused, be refunded to them.