JUDGMENT : 1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 13.9.2001 in Sessions Case No.150 of 1995, the appellant is before this Court. 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and for that he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The appellant is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and for that he is directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine amount to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 3. The prosecution case as it disclosed during the course of the Trial, is under: PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Anandrao Shinde was posted at Police Station Kothari in the year 1994-95. PW1 Ramchandra Fakira Bawane came to the police station and lodged his oral report Exhibit 33. As per the said oral report, PW1 Ramchandra was having 2 sons and 2 daughters. Deceased Sangeeta was eldest amongst daughters. Her marriage was performed in the year 1993 with appellant Anandrao s/o Janardan Hiware who is a resident of same village. Out of wedlock, couple was blessed with one son Swapnil. At the time of lodging of the report, his age was 9 months. The report further recites that deceased Sangeeta, her husband appellant Anandrao, and her mother-in-law Sundarabai used to stay jointly. She was subjected to cruelty at the hands of appellant Anandrao and mother-in-law Sundarabai on some domestic issues and that was reported to PW1 first informant Ramchandra. It is further stated in the first information report that 2 months prior to lodging of the report, appellant Anandrao poured kerosene on person of deceased Sangeeta. That time, brother-in-law of deceased Sangeeta took her to the house of police patil of village Tohgaon. There it was decided not to lodge report about said incident with the police. The first information report states that an understanding was given at that time to appellant Anandrao. The report further states that on 18.5.1995 PW1 first informant Ramchandra and his wife had been to Rajura for attending marriage ceremony. There it was decided not to lodge report about said incident with the police. The first information report states that an understanding was given at that time to appellant Anandrao. The report further states that on 18.5.1995 PW1 first informant Ramchandra and his wife had been to Rajura for attending marriage ceremony. On 20.5.1995, one Vinayak Tukaram Niwalkar came to him and informed that his daughter is missing. On getting such information, PW1 first informant Ramchandra came to village Tohgaon and searched for his daughter. That time, it was informed by appellant Anandrao that Sangeeta is missing from the time when she had left the house for washing clothes. Therefore, PW1 first informant Ramchandra went to a well and found clothes in a basket. The police were informed and the police fished out the body of deceased Sangeeta. As per the first information report, deceased Sangeeta committed suicide due to ill-treatment which she used to received for domestic reasons. 4. PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde, thereafter, registered an offence against appellant Anandrao and his mother Sundarabai vide Crime No.12 of 1995 for the offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The printed first information report is at Exhibit 50. After recording the first information report, PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde proceeded to the spot of incident which was a well situated near bus stand of village Tohgaon. The well belongs to Grampanchayat Tohgaon. The said well was situated at a distance of about 300 feet from the road of Tohgaon. The well was surrounded by shrubs. The spot panchanama of the spot of incident was recorded in the presence of panchas and it is at Exhibit 38. After fishing out dead body of deceased Sangeeta from the well, the inquest was also done over the dead body vide inquest panchanama Exhibit 27. The dead body of deceased Sangeeta was also referred to the hospital for postmortem. PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde also recorded statements of various witnesses. On 22.5.1995 during the course of investigation, PW1 handed over a complaint dated 10.5.1995 Exhibit 41. Also, on 24.5.1995 PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde seized a Kararnama Exhibit 35. The viscera was also sent to the chemical analyzer for its chemical analysis. In the meanwhile, on 22.5.1995 appellant Anandrao and his mother accused No.2 Sundarabai were arrested on 22.5.1995. On 22.5.1995 during the course of investigation, PW1 handed over a complaint dated 10.5.1995 Exhibit 41. Also, on 24.5.1995 PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde seized a Kararnama Exhibit 35. The viscera was also sent to the chemical analyzer for its chemical analysis. In the meanwhile, on 22.5.1995 appellant Anandrao and his mother accused No.2 Sundarabai were arrested on 22.5.1995. After completion of other usual investigation, the final report was presented in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class at Chandrapur who noticed that the offence is exclusively triable by Court of Session. Therefore, the committal order was passed. After landing the case in the Court of learned Sessions Judge at Chandrapur, it was registered as Sessions Case No.150 of 1995. Learned Sessions Judge at Chandrapur, below Exhibit 17, framed a charge against appellant Anandrao and his mother Sundarabai for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They both denied the charge. 5. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused persons, in all 8 witnesses were examined by the prosecution and also relied upon the various documents duly proved during the course of the Trial. After a full dressed Trial, learned Sessions Judge at Chandrapur acquitted accused Sundarabai from the offences. However, learned Sessions Judge convicted appellant Anandrao and sentenced him as observed in the opening paragraph of his judgment. Though Sundarabai was acquitted, the State preferred not to file appeal against her acquittal. 6. I have heard learned senior counsel Shri Anil S. Mardikar with Ms U.R. Tanna for the appellant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade for the respondent/ State in extenso. With their able assistance, I have gone through the notes of evidence and other proved documents on record. 7. Learned senior counsel Shri Anil S. Mardikar for the appellant submits that looking to evidences of PW4 Gajanan Krishna Khamankar and PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde, possibility of an accident is not ruled out. He further submits that reliance on Exhibit 35 a Kararnama dated 19.3.1995 cannot be placed in view of the fact that by virtue of the said agreement earlier ill-treatment as per the prosecution stands condoned and there is no evidence to show that after execution of the said Kararnama, deceased Sangeeta was subjected to any cruelty. He further submits that reliance on Exhibit 35 a Kararnama dated 19.3.1995 cannot be placed in view of the fact that by virtue of the said agreement earlier ill-treatment as per the prosecution stands condoned and there is no evidence to show that after execution of the said Kararnama, deceased Sangeeta was subjected to any cruelty. He placed reliance to the reported decisions in the cases of Atmaram s/o Raysingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at (2013)12 SCC 286 ; Sambhaji Soma Rupnavar vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported at 2013 ALL MR (Cri) 507, and Prakash M. Adhau vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at 2006 CRI L.J. 2226 to submit that even the prosecution has not proved that appellant Anandrao is guilty of commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade for the respondent/ State submits that Exhibit 35 clearly shows that appellant Anandrao was guilty of committing atrocities on the deceased and, therefore, she has committed suicide on 20.5.1995 by jumping into a well. He submits that learned Judge of the Court below has appreciated evidences of the prosecution witnesses in its correct perspective and, therefore, the present appeal be dismissed. 9. PW8 Dr. Priyadarshan Baburao Muthal was medical officer on 22.5.1995 at General Hospital, Chandrapur. On the said day, dead body of deceased Sangeeta was brought to the hospital for postmortem. PW8 Dr. Priyadarshan and Dr. Mrs. Shete conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased Sangeeta. The autopsy surgeons noticed that dead body of deceased Sangeeta was in a state of decomposition. Therefore, they could not give a definite opinion in respect of cause of death However, viscera was preserved for its chemical analysis. postmortem report is available on record at Exhibit 64. No external injuries over the dead body of deceased Sangeeta were noticed by the autopsy surgeons. When PW8 Dr. Priyadarshan Muthal was in the witness box, chemical analyzer's report Exhibit 67 was brought to his notice and as per the said chemical analyzer's no poison was detected. After perusing said chemical analyzer's report, the autopsy surgeons opined that death of deceased Sangeeta was due to drowning. 10. The dead body of deceased Sangeeta was fished out from the well of Grampanchayat, village Tohgaon. As per the evidence of PW8 Dr. After perusing said chemical analyzer's report, the autopsy surgeons opined that death of deceased Sangeeta was due to drowning. 10. The dead body of deceased Sangeeta was fished out from the well of Grampanchayat, village Tohgaon. As per the evidence of PW8 Dr. Priyadarshan Muthal, cause of death of deceased Sangeeta is drowning. In view of this fact, there cannot be any dispute that deceased Sangeeta died an unnatural death. The marriage of deceased Sangeeta was performed, as per the first information report, in the year 1993 whereas her dead body was fished out on 21.5.1995. Thus, within a span of 2 years she met her an unnatural death. 11. Death can be homicidal, suicidal, or accidental one. The prosecution is not launched against the present appellant that death of deceased Sangeeta was homicidal and he is responsible for homicidal death. Therefore, the question of homicidal death is completely ruled out. 12. According to the prosecution, death of deceased Sangeeta is suicidal one and she committed suicide due to ill-treatment which she received at the hands of appellant Anandrao. On the contrary, it is the defence of appellant Anandrao that Sangeeta died accidental death. 13. There are no eyewitnesses in the prosecution case to show that in their presence deceased Sangeeta jumped into the well. From the evidences of PW1 Ramchandra Bawane and PW4 Gajanan Khamankar, pancha witnesses to the spot panchanama, it is clear that washed clothes were found in a basket kept on parapet wall of the well. It would be useful to reproduce version as appearing in the evidence of PW4 Gajanan Khamankar and also the version as appearing in the evidence of PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde to appreciate the contention of learned senior counsel Shri Anil S. Mardikar for the appellant in respect of possibility of accidental death. PW4 Gajanan Khamankar states as under: “The well had a cement foundation or flooring of about 1½ feet which is encircling it. The foundation is laid with full cement plaster. From this foundation level, the height of parapet wall is 1½ feet. The well does not have any angles or pullies for drawing of water. PW4 Gajanan Khamankar states as under: “The well had a cement foundation or flooring of about 1½ feet which is encircling it. The foundation is laid with full cement plaster. From this foundation level, the height of parapet wall is 1½ feet. The well does not have any angles or pullies for drawing of water. It is correct to say that the water from the well is required to be drawn up physically both hands by standing on the parapet wall.” PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde states in his evidence in that behalf as under: “It is true to sat that water used to be drawn out from the said well directly by standing on the parapet wall of the well as there was just one wheel attached to the iron angle. It is true to say that if one sleeped while drawing the well water, in the said manner one could fall down in the well.” From these consistent evidences of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that one has to stand on a parapet wall of 1½ feet from the ground level of the said well to fetch the water. The evidence of pancha witness shows that the well does not have any angle or pulley. However, evidence of PW7 Police Sub Inspector Subhash Shinde shows that one wheel is attached to the iron angle. There is nothing available on record to show that said wheel was in a working condition. This Court would attach much importance to the evidence of PW4 Gajanan Khamankar since he is a resident of village Tohgaon itself to show that at the relevant time one was required to fetch water physically by both hands by standing on the parapet wall of the well. 14. In view of aforesaid evidences, possibility of sleeping inside the well while fetching water is not completely ruled out. Once the material brought on record suggesting possibility of accidental death is not completely ruled out, benefit has to be extended in favour of the appellant. 15. Insofar as an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the first information report is totally silent that deceased Sangeeta was subject to cruelty at the hands of appellant Anandrao on account of any demand. What is stated in the first information report is, that she was subjected to beating on some domestic issues. 15. Insofar as an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the first information report is totally silent that deceased Sangeeta was subject to cruelty at the hands of appellant Anandrao on account of any demand. What is stated in the first information report is, that she was subjected to beating on some domestic issues. Further, from the substantive evidence of PW1 first informant Ramchandra Bawane, shows that there were no demands from appellant Anandrao or on account of any monetary demand deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty. In the last paragraph of his examination-in-chief he has stated that at the time of marriage though amount of Rs.20,000/- was given, appellant Anandrao used to demand Rs.10,000/- from deceased Sangeeta. However, this particular version is proved omission. 16. The prosecution has examined PW2 a neighbour Sambha Budhaji Landage who has turned hostile. However, his evidence shows that there used to be quarrels between accused No.2 Sundarabai and deceased Sangeeta. PW3 a Sarpanch Ramesh Sadashio More, who also turned hostile, has stated that there used to be quarrels in between appellant Anandrao and his deceased wife Sangeeta. From these evidences, it is clear that there was no demand from appellant Anandrao. Quarrels were in the nature of domestic reasons. Merely because there were quarrels in between couple on domestic issues, that does not constitute an offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. 17. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade for the respondent/State heavily relies on Exhibit 35 a Kararnama. This document is proved by PW5 Maroti Sadashio Kadukar. He has turned hostile. Merely because the witness has turned hostile, only on that count the evidence of such witness cannot be discarded to the extent that evidence of such witness is supportive of the prosecution, can be considered, is the law laid down by the Honourbale Apex Court in the case of Khujji @ Surendra Tiwari vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported at (1991) 3 SCC 627 . 18. According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade for the respondent/State, Exhibit 35, which is in the nature of Kararnama, shows that deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty. However, even the said document is conspicuously silent that ill-treatment was on account of any demand. This document is dated 19.3.1995. 18. According to learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri N.B. Jawade for the respondent/State, Exhibit 35, which is in the nature of Kararnama, shows that deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty. However, even the said document is conspicuously silent that ill-treatment was on account of any demand. This document is dated 19.3.1995. The evidence of PW1 Ramchandra Bawane shows that after execution of this document, deceased Sangeeta resumed her cohabitation with appellant Anandrao. Picking up this thread from the prosecution case, it is the submission of learned senior counsel Shri Anil S. Mardikar for the appellant that by execution of this document Exhibit 35 earlier ill-treatment stands condoned and for that learned senior counsel, in my view, has rightly relied on the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Atmaram s/o Raysingh Rathod vs. State of Maharashtra cited supra. In Atmaram's case, an undertaking Exhibit 47 was executed on 17.4.1988 whereas drowning of deceased Purnabai took place on 15.7.1988 i.e. within a span of 3 months. It is the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that after resumption of cohabitation till unfortunate incident of drowning, there is no evidence to show that during this period of 3 months the deceased was subjected to cruelty except a bald statement of PW1 Ramchandra Bawane. 19. Though Exhibit 41 dated 10.5.1995 is available on record, which shows that on 10.3.1993 appellant Anandrao poured kerosene on deceased Sangeeta. According to the prosecution, it is under the signature of deceased Sangeeta. The said report was addressed to the Kothari Police Station. However, record shows that actually the report was not lodged with the Kothari Police Station. Said report Exhibit 41 is coming on record during the course of investigation by PW7 Subhasb Shinde. His evidence shows that during inquiry, PW1 first informant Ramchandra handed over copy of Exhibit 41 to him. Learned Judge of the Court below, in my view, has rightly discarded the said document since PW1 first informant Ramchandra is totally silent about said report in his FIR lodged against the appellant and also evidence of PW1 Ramchandra does not have any reference about same. 20. PW1 first informant Ramchandra has admitted that no report was lodged with the police after resumption of cohabitation. Non-filing of report after resumption of cohabitation has its own importance. 20. PW1 first informant Ramchandra has admitted that no report was lodged with the police after resumption of cohabitation. Non-filing of report after resumption of cohabitation has its own importance. Exhibit 35 is not only signed by appellant Anandrao, deceased Sangeeta, and pancha witnesses but signed by PW1 first informant Ramchandra also. Exhibit 35 was required to be executed because according to the prosecution, deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty and only on execution of Exhibit 35 deceased was allowed to have cohabitation with appellant Anandrao. Had there was any ill-treatment after execution of Exhibit 35 and prior to incident of drowning, it would have been a natural reaction on the part of PW1 Ramchandra to report the matter to the police or at least to Panchayat before whom Exhibit 35 was executed to point out them that in spite of execution of Exhibit 35, still appellant Anandrao is persistent in committing ill-treatment to deceased Sangeeta. Nothing such has happened. In my view, therefore, importance cannot be attached to bald statement made during the course of recording of evidence of PW1 first informant Ramchandra that after execution of Exhibit 35 ill-treatment continued. Therefore, I reject the evidence of PW1 first informant Ramchandra that there used to be ill-treatment even after execution of document Exhibit 35. 21. It is the obligation on the part of the prosecution to prove that deceased Sangeeta was subjected to cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. On such proof only, the prosecution can press into service statutory presumption as available to it under Section 113A of the Evidence Act. In absence of proof of cruelty, merely because deceased Sangeeta met with an unnatural death within a span of 2 years of her marriage, ipso facto the prosecution cannot take recourse to Section 113A of the Evidence Act. Re-appreciation of the prosecution evidences shows that there was no ill-treatment after resumption of cohabitation after execution of document Exhibit 35 till the date of unfortunate incident on 20.5.1995. Further, the evidences as are brought on record in this case show that there is a possibility of accident and accidentally deceased Sageeta sleeping inside the well is not completely ruled, that leads me to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. Further, the evidences as are brought on record in this case show that there is a possibility of accident and accidentally deceased Sageeta sleeping inside the well is not completely ruled, that leads me to pass the following order: ORDER (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) Judgment and order passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur dated 13.9.2001 in Sessions Case No.150 of 1995 is hereby set aside. (iii) The appellant is acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The Bail Bonds of the appellant stand cancelled.