JUDGMENT : V.M. DESHPANDE, J. 1.By the present appeal, appellants/original accused Nos.1and 2 (hereinafter referred to as accused Nos.1 and 2 for the sake of brevity) are challenging their conviction imposed on them on 11.10.2005 by learned 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No.35/2005 whereby learned Judge of the Court below convicted accused Nos.1 and 2 for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and 7 years respectively apart from payment of fine of Rs. 500/- and Rs. 1000/- on each count. 2. Police Sub Inspector Keshao Pandurang Dobade (PW6) was attached to Civil Lines Police Station, Akola. On 20.5.2004, one Yogesh Jagganathrao Kuchar came to the police station in morning and informed that backside of his house one Vinod Naik, accused No.1 is residing and on 20.5.2004 at about 8:00 hours in the morning, when he was taking walk, he noticed crowd in front of Vinod's house. There, one Devendra narrated him that Chitra's dead body was found hanging with lemon tree at the house of Vinod. On the basis of the said, Keshao Dobade registered a merg khabari vide Merg No.48/2004. The report as well as the merg khabari are available on record at Exhibits 29 and 30. Thereafter, he went to the spot. He called two panchas for preparing spot and inquest panchnamas. Those were conducted by him. Spot panchnama is at Exhibit 20. Whereas, inquest panchnama is at Exhibit 21. He then forwarded the dead body for its postmortem. 3. On the same day, at night hours, deceased's father Sadashiv Uttam Rumale (PW1) lodged a report in the police station regarding the incident. The said was written report and is at Exhibit 15. On the basis of the said written report, an offence was registered vide Crime No.388/2004 under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Printed First Information Report is at Exhibit 16. The offence was registered against 3 accused persons. Thereafter, he recorded statement of witnesses. Accused persons were arrested. After completion of other usual investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of Law. 4. Learned Magistrate, in whose Court the chargesheet was presented, found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, committal order was passed. 5. The offence was registered against 3 accused persons. Thereafter, he recorded statement of witnesses. Accused persons were arrested. After completion of other usual investigation, chargesheet was filed before the Court of Law. 4. Learned Magistrate, in whose Court the chargesheet was presented, found that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. Therefore, committal order was passed. 5. After the case being so committed, the said was registered as Sessions Trial No.35/2005 and learned 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola framed charge for offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against accused Nos.1 and 2 and one Mirabai. 6. The prosecution examined in all 6 witnesses. The defence also examined 5 witnesses and their case is of total denial. 7. After appreciating the prosecution case, learned Judge of the Court below acquitted accused No.3 Mirabai, however convicted accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, this appeal. 8. I have heard learned senior counsel Shri A.V.Gupta for the appellants and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.S.V.Kolhe for the respondent/State. 9. Learned senior counsel Shri A.V.Gupta took me through in detail evidence of prosecution witnesses. It is his submission that the prosecution utterly failed to prove nature of harassment so as to drive Chitra, the deceased, to commit suicide. He also pointed out a fact that witnesses on which the prosecution heavily relies are reported belatedly without there being any explanation and for that he relied on decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case of Laxman Bapurao Ghaiwane vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported at, (2012) AllMR(Cri) 3605. It is also his submission that on the same set of fact and evidence, when learned Judge of the Court below acquitted accused No.3 Mirabai and against whom no appeal is preferred by the State, accused Nos.1 and 2 cannot be convicted on the basis of the very same set of fact and evidence and for that he relied on decisions of this Court in cases of Sanjaysingh s/o Sitaram Khatwar vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported at,2018 AllMR(Cri) 5043 and Balaji s/o Vitthal Kinhale vs. The State of Maharashtra, reported at, (2018) AllMR(Cri) 4038 and submitted that the appeal be allowed and the accused persons be acquitted. 10. 10. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mrs.S.V.Kolhe for the respondent/State submitted that evidence of deceased's father and first informant Sadashiv Rumale (PW1), Prabha Gajanan Ukadkar (PW4) who is neighbour of the first informant, and deceased's brother Nilesh Sadashiv Rumale (PW5) is sufficient to hold that there was a demand of Rs. 30,000/- at the hands of the accused persons and for that she was subjected to cruelty. She, therefore, submitted that the appeal be dismissed. 11. The written report (Exhibit 15) is addressed to Civil Lines Police Station, Akola for holding an inquiry into suspicious death of the daughter of the first informant. The said report states that marriage of his daughter Chitra was solemnized with Vinod Naik, accused No.1 in the month of May 2002 at village Bhandaraj. After the marriage, Chitra went to husband's house for cohabitation. Vinod used to drive jeep. After the marriage, Vinod sold out the vehicle for purchasing a new vehicle. It is stated that Vinod always used to say his daughter to bring Rs. 30,000/- for purchasing a new vehicle. Chitra's mother-in-law, accused No.2 and grandmother-in-law, accused No.3 also used to harass her for bringing money. They used to beat her for bringing the money. Similarly, they used nagging language that her father has given less dowry in the marriage and on that issue they used to harass Chitra physically as well as mentally. When his daughter came to his house, she disclosed about the said to him and his wife, however, as his financial position was critical, he could not give money. It is stated in the First Information Report that a day before telephone call was made to house of his brother Ashok Katyarmal his daughter informed him on telephone that her mother-in-law and grandmother-in-law came at her place and are beating her for money. Her husband is also beating her and if money is not sent, her life is in danger. 12. Dhnyaneshwar Wamanrao Mandvi is PW2. The prosecution examined the said witness to show that accused No.2 Sau.Pratipada was in service at Primary School at Dhanaj as headmistress. His evidence is relied on by the prosecution that accused No.2 was not on duty from 15.5.2004 to 21.5.2004. A panch to spot as well as inquest panchnama is Prashant Shrikrishna Dagwal (PW3). Prabha Gajanan Ukadkar (PW4) is a neighbour of the first informant (PW1). His evidence is relied on by the prosecution that accused No.2 was not on duty from 15.5.2004 to 21.5.2004. A panch to spot as well as inquest panchnama is Prashant Shrikrishna Dagwal (PW3). Prabha Gajanan Ukadkar (PW4) is a neighbour of the first informant (PW1). Nilesh Sadashiv Rumale (PW5) is brother of Chitra, the deceased. Keshao Pandurang Dobade (PW6) is Investigating Officer. 13. For deciding the present case, evidence of father of the deceased and first informant Sadashiv (PW1); Prabha (PW4) who is neighbour of the first informant, and Nilesh (PW5) who is brother of the deceased is relevant. 14. There is no dispute that on 24.5.2000 the marriage of Chitra, the deceased was performed with Vinod, accused No.1. It is also not in dispute that she committed suicide by hanging at her matrimonial house. 15. Before me, it is not disputed that accused No.2 and and accused No.3 Mirabai used to reside at Dhanaj. From the record it is clear that maternal uncle of Chitra who was mediator in the marriage resides at Akola where Chitra used to reside with her husband and residence of the maternal uncle is just behind S.T.Stand at Akola. 16. Nilesh (PW5), brother of Chitra, even prior to the marriage was residing at Amravati and his evidence shows that he was serving in a private firm. 17. According to the prosecution, demand for purchasing a new jeep was for Rs. 30,000/- 18. The father of the deceased and first informant Sadashiv (PW1) admitted in his cross-examination that Chitra's maternal uncle Subhash Naik was mediator in the marriage. It is also brought on record that at the time of engagement, mediators as well as the accused persons were aware of poor financial condition of the first informant. It is also admitted by him that in spite of knowing the poor financial condition, accused No.1 Vinod showed his willingness to marry with Chitra. He also admitted that accused No.2 works as headmistress at Dhanaj and father of accused No.1 is a teacher. 19. The evidence of the first informant (PW1) reveals that after the marriage, Chitra started residing with accused No.1 at Khadki, District Akola and all the accused persons were cohabiting together. He deposed that after the marriage, for about 2-4 months, their behaviour was proper but, thereafter, Chitra started receiving ill-treatment both mentally as well as physically for demand of Rs. 30,000/-. He deposed that after the marriage, for about 2-4 months, their behaviour was proper but, thereafter, Chitra started receiving ill-treatment both mentally as well as physically for demand of Rs. 30,000/-. His evidence shows that prior to one day of suicide, his son Nilesh (PW5) telephonically contacted Chitra. That time, he found Chitra was weeping and she narrated threat to her life. This particular evidence is found to be in contradiction with evidence of Nilesh (PW5). 20. Evidence of Nilesh (PW5), brother of Chitra, shows that on 19.5.2004 at about 10:00 in the morning he himself telephonically contacted Chitra and at the relevant time he noticed that she was weeping and on his query she narrated that her mother-in-law had come to her house and since about 2-3 days the accused persons are ill-treating her. Immediately, he, therefore, went to Akola and at 3:00 O'clock in the noon he reached to the house of Chitra. At that time, all 3 accused persons were present at the house. That time, Chitra took him in a corner and narrated the demand of Rs. 30,000/-. 21. Thus, on the point of telephonic call there is a material variance between first informant Sadashiv (PW1) and deceased's brother Nilesh (PW5). 22. Be that as it may, even according to first informant Sadashiv (PW1), the incident of the telephonic talk between Nilesh (PW5) and Chitra was known to him. Though this was a very material aspect, the said was not narrated in the written report (Exhibit 15). 23. As per evidence of first informant Sadashiv (PW1), on 20.5.2004 he received a message about death of Chitra and reached to her house. At that time, dead body of Chitra was lying below tree to which she hanged herself. Thus, when Sadashiv visited Chitra's house, her dead both was lying. In spite of the fact that Sadashiv was knowing that there was ill-treatment to Chitra, he did not immediately lodged a report and he filed written report on 20.5.2004 at 22:00 hours. No explanation is offered either in the First Information Report or during the course of the Trial for lodging of the report belatedly. 24. Prompt lodgment of the First Information Report always rules out false implication. However, belated First Information Report that too the written one does not rule out false implication. 25. No explanation is offered either in the First Information Report or during the course of the Trial for lodging of the report belatedly. 24. Prompt lodgment of the First Information Report always rules out false implication. However, belated First Information Report that too the written one does not rule out false implication. 25. Nilesh (PW5), the person who is brother of Chitra, lastly met Chitra on 19.5.2004. As per his evidence, he made a telephonic call to Chitra and during the telephonic talk, he noticed that Chitra is weeping and on his query, as per his evidence, she narrated that her mother-in-law had come to her house and since about 2-3 days the accused persons are ill-treating her. His evidence shows immediately he went to Akola and at 3:00 O'clock in the noon he reached to the house of Chitra. At that time, all 3 accused persons were present at the house and in their presence taking the said witness to a corner Chitra narrated ill-treatment. His evidence further shows that that time he made aware financial position to the accused persons and went away. On the next day, he received an information about hanging by Chitra. 26. For two reasons, I am not ready to rely the testimony of Nilesh (PW5) namely: (i) the Investigating Officer could record his statement during the course of the investigation only on 24.5.2004. Thus, there is a delay of 5 days. No explanation is offered by the prosecution for belated recording of police statement of the important witness. The Honourable Apex Court, in the case of Ganesh Bhavan Patel and another vs. State of Maharashtra, reported at, (1979) AIR SC 135, ruled that, “normally, in a case where the commission of the crime is alleged to have been seen by witnesses who are easily available, a prudent investigator would give to the examination of such witnesses precedence, over the evidence of other witnesses.” Nilesh was person who lastly met Chitra, the deceased and to whom when lastly made a telephonic call she narrated harassment. In spite of the said, the prosecution recorded his statement belatedly without offering any explanation. In spite of the said, the prosecution recorded his statement belatedly without offering any explanation. The Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Laxman Bapurao Ghaiwane vs. The State of Maharashtra cites supra, ruled that, “the delay in recording statements of important witnesses, without reasonable explanation, has created a reasonable doubt in our mind as to the genuineness of the prosecution case”. It is to be noted that it is not the prosecution case that till the time when the police statement of Nilesh was recorded, he was not available and/or due to his nonavailability, at the earliest his statement could not be recorded. (ii) Another reason for discarding the testimony of Nilesh is his conduct. His evidence shows that after getting telephonic information on 19.5.2004, immediately he left for Akola from Amravati. It would be useful to reproduce his relevant evidence and the said is reproduced herein below: “On 19.5.2004 I spent about one and half hour at the home of Chitra. On that day from the home of Chitra I directly proceeded at Amravati. On listening talks of Chitra I feel that severe illtreatment is there to her. In the way from the house of Chitra upto S.T.Stand two police stations are there. At S.T.Stand also a police chowky is there. On 19.5.2004 I went at Akola by S.T.Bus. The home of my maternal uncle at Akola is behind S.T.Stand. On 19.5.2004, I had not been at Bhandaras or try to meet with maternal uncle. It is true that since from my meeting with Chitra at Akola up till receiving message on next day about the incident I did not talk regarding the talks held with Chitra on 19.5.2004 with anybody else. Prior to lodging the report by my father, I make aware to him about talks held with Chitra on 19.5.2004. From the aforesaid, it is clear that though he noticed that there was a severe ill-treatment to her, he did not report the matter either to the police station or even to the mediator or even to his maternal uncle. The said conduct, in my view, is most unnatural and that allows me to discard his testimony. His evidence further shows that the telephonic talk and his visit to the house of Chitra at Akola on 19.5.2004 were made aware to his father before lodging of the report. 27. The said conduct, in my view, is most unnatural and that allows me to discard his testimony. His evidence further shows that the telephonic talk and his visit to the house of Chitra at Akola on 19.5.2004 were made aware to his father before lodging of the report. 27. Insofar as Prabha Ukadkar (PW4), who is neighbour of first informant Sadashiv (PW1), is concerned, her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded on 12.6.2004 without there being any explanation for recording belated statement. The said witness is next-door of Sadashiv. Had really the ill-treatment was narrated to her by Chitra, the deceased, as claimed by the said witness, it would be really natural delay. It is really unnatural delay especially when the Investigating Officer admits that on very same day he recorded statement belongs to Bhandaras. For discarding the evidence of Nilesh (PW5) for recording his police statement belatedly, for the very same reasons, I discard the evidence of Prabha. 28. The evidence of first informant Sadashiv (PW1) shows first delivery of Chitra at her matrimonial house. Normally, in this part of area, first delivery takes place at parental house of married women. Had really there was ill-treatment and/or there was the demand of money, the delivery would not have been taken place at the matrimonial place of Chitra, the deceased. 29. The evidence of first informant Sadashiv (PW1) and deceased's brother Nilesh (PW5) is most general in nature. The accusations are general and those are levelled against all three accused persons who were charged. However, learned Judge of the Court below acquitted accused No.3 Mirabai. This Court in paragraph No.19 in the case of Sanjaysingh s/o Sitaram Khatwar vs. The State of Maharashtra cited supra found that, “when the other accused persons are acquitted by the Court below and their acquittal is not challenged by the State and when there is no independent evidence by which case of the appellant is segregated from the acquitted accused, benefit has to be given”. 30. In my view, merely because Chitra, the deceased committed suicide, in absence of any positive evidence about cruelty at the hands of accused Nos.1 and 2, the accused cannot be convicted for which they were charged. Hence, I pass following order: ORDER : (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. 30. In my view, merely because Chitra, the deceased committed suicide, in absence of any positive evidence about cruelty at the hands of accused Nos.1 and 2, the accused cannot be convicted for which they were charged. Hence, I pass following order: ORDER : (i) The criminal appeal is allowed. (ii) The judgment and order of conviction dated 11.10.2005 passed by learned 5th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Akola in Sessions Trial No.35/2005 is hereby set aside. (ii) Accused Nos.1 and 2 are hereby acquitted of offences under Sections 498-A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) Accused Nos.1 and 2 are on bail. Their Bail Bonds stand cancelled.