JUDGMENT : ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J. 1. In this appeal, exception has been taken to the judgment and order dated 05.08.2004, rendered by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2003, recording the guilt of the appellant for offences punishable under section 498-A read with Section 34 and Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). PROSECUTION CASE IN BRIEF 2. In brief, case of the prosecution is that, deceased Mangala was married to present Gajanan Derne in the year 1996 and after marriage, she went to cohabit with her husband. After the marriage, Gajanan maintained his wife peacefully and properly about one year. Deceased Mangala was residing with her husband at Himayatnagar with her children. Prior to eight days of the incident, accused no.2 Saraswatibai came to the house of deceased Mangala and quarrelled with her and abused her. So also, prior to 2 to 3 months, accused No.1 Gyanoba came to the house of deceased and quarrelled with her and abused her. Accused Nos. 1 to 3 were allegedly visiting the house of the deceased and demanding money from time to time. Therefore, on 22.01.2003, between 05:00 p.m. and 06:00 p.m., Mangala allegedly poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire, resulting in her death by suicide After investigation, charges were framed against accused persons, who were the father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in- law of the deceased Mangala. Precise indictment was on allegation that, there was physical and mental cruelty in the backdrop of demand of money. On trial, case of prosecution was accepted and learned Trial Judge rendered above judgment of conviction. Precisely, the same has been taken exception by way of instant appeal. SUBMISSIONS On behalf of appellant : 3. At the threshold, learned counsel for appellants pointed out that, in this case, three accused were chargesheeted, however, during pendency of appeal, father-in-law and brother-in-law have expired, and as such, appeal stands abated against them, and consequently, appeal now remains against only mother-in-law. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is appellant’s false implication. That, there is no convincing, cogent and legal acceptable evidence. That, there is only evidence of near and dear ones and no independent witness like neighbour has been examined. That, general and sweeping allegations are made against in-laws regarding alleged demand, taunting and insulting. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is appellant’s false implication. That, there is no convincing, cogent and legal acceptable evidence. That, there is only evidence of near and dear ones and no independent witness like neighbour has been examined. That, general and sweeping allegations are made against in-laws regarding alleged demand, taunting and insulting. Learned counsel pointed out that, in fact, deceased and her husband i.e. son of accused nos.1 and 2 were residing separately since marriage itself, whereas appellants resided at distinct place. That, none of the witnesses has elaborated specific role of the any of the appellant and rather omnibus allegations are levelled. Allegations are made that there are taunting on complexion and not preparing food, but such allegations are general in nature, and who amongst the three accused taunted and when has not been stated by any of the witnesses. Learned counsel pointed out that, only two visits of deceased to her parents house has come on record i.e. during Diwali and Panchami. That, marriage is of the year 1996 and during which year of such festivals, there was reporting has not been stated by witnesses. Resultantly, according to the learned counsel evidence as regards to offence under Section 498-A of the is weak and fragile. 5. Learned counsel pointed out that, as regards to offence of 306 of IPC is concerned, it is pointed out that, there is no material suggesting presence of the appellants and further they too have indulged in abetment, inducement or instigation in any manner to commit suicide. Learned counsel pointed out that appellants admittedly being residing at distinct place and their visits to the house of deceased are not coming on record so as to hold continuous harassment of any manner. Learned counsel pointed out that, complaint is out of annoyance because appellant, father-in-law did not purchase agricultural land in the name of husband of deceased, even when it was allegedly agreed. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the allegations are apparently false and after thought. Learned counsel further pointed out that dying declaration itself is clear that deceased ignited herself in the rage of anger, and as such appellants ought not to have been held guilty for abetment to commit suicide. Therefore, according to learned counsel, the allegations are apparently false and after thought. Learned counsel further pointed out that dying declaration itself is clear that deceased ignited herself in the rage of anger, and as such appellants ought not to have been held guilty for abetment to commit suicide. For above reasons, learned counsel criticizes the manner of appreciation, the reasons and the findings reached at by learned Trial Judge and prays to interfere by allowing the appeal. On behalf of State : 6. Per contra, learned APP, who supported the judgment submitted that parents-in-law and brother-in-law subjected deceased to cruelty, both physical and mental. That, there was demand of money and on account of non fulfillment, there was harassment coupled with continuous taunting, insulting. That, deceased reported it to her parents, brother and even her own sister in law, i.e. daughter of appellant. They have all consistently report. Learned APP pointed out that, deceased gave dying declaration, which is voluntary and credible. Appellants are named by deceased. Therefore, appellants being responsible for suicide, they are rightly held guilty, and so prayer is raised to dismiss the appeal. STATUS AND ROLE OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES 7. In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as eleven witnesses. Their role and status and the sum and substance of their evidence can be summarized as under : PW1 Dnyandeo Sahadeo Mukale is father of the deceased. He deposed at Exh.19 as under : “1. The deceased Mangala was my daughter. She was married with one Gajanan Gyanoba Derne, on 10/5/1996. After marriage, my daughter Mangala went to the house of her husband for cohabitation. At the time of settlement of marriage I have paid Rs. 25000/- to the Gajanan for completion of his D.Ed education. piror to the marriage of my daughter with Gajanan he has again demanded Rs. 10000/- in excess which was not agreed by me. At that time I have called mediater and disclosed that Gajanan again demanding Rs. 10,000/- in excess Mediaters have convinced Gajanan for not demanding the excess amoint while marriage was solemnize with Gajanan. After marriage, Gajanan Maintained his wife peacefully and property about one year. Inthe year 1997 Gajanan was appointed as a teacher. 2. The accused No. 1 father-in-law of my daughter accused No. 2 is mother-in-law and accused No. 3 is brother-in-law of my daughter. My daughter. After marriage, Gajanan Maintained his wife peacefully and property about one year. Inthe year 1997 Gajanan was appointed as a teacher. 2. The accused No. 1 father-in-law of my daughter accused No. 2 is mother-in-law and accused No. 3 is brother-in-law of my daughter. My daughter. My daughter and her husband and her parents-in-law were residing jointly after the marriage of my daughter Mangala. Accused Gyanoba and Datta were having four acres land each, where as Gajanan was not having any land. Three acres land which was adjoining to the land of accused Nos. 1 and 3 was offered for sale and accused have agreed to purchase the said land in the name of Gajanan, my son in law. The accused Nos. 1 and 3 have purchased the agricultural land in the name of accused Datta instead of Gajanan. Gajanan has paid the consideration for purchase of the land out of his salary, therefore, dispute arose between Gajanan and accused Nos. 1 to 3 as said land was purchased in the name of accused No. 2 Datta. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 by visiting the house of Gajanan at his service place and were demanding money to his time to time. The accused No. 1 to 3 demanding Rs. 10000/- to my daughter, whenever they used to visit the house of Gajanan and my daughter, On that count, quarrel was going on between my daughter Mangal and accused persons. Accused were abusing to my daughter by using filthy language and insulting her, and also about her character. The accused Nos. 1 to 3 were quarreling with Mangal saying that she was black in colour, nor preparing the meal properly and other grounds, and also telling her she was insisting her husband for demanding the agriculture land newly purchased and creating quarrel between them. The accused Datta was creating terror with my daughter under the influence of liquor. My daughter was educated and she was B.A.Bed. and due to illtreatment and harassment by accused persons she was mentally disturbed. 3. Whenever my daughter used to visit my house at the time of Deewali and panchimi festival Ashe had narrated the entire incidents of illtreatment and harassment given by the accused on account of demand of money from her parents. On 19th of Jan. and due to illtreatment and harassment by accused persons she was mentally disturbed. 3. Whenever my daughter used to visit my house at the time of Deewali and panchimi festival Ashe had narrated the entire incidents of illtreatment and harassment given by the accused on account of demand of money from her parents. On 19th of Jan. 2003 my daughter has talked with my wife on phone from Himayat nagar, stating that her mother in law came to her house on 8th Jan.2003 and was demanding money which was agreed prior to her marriage, and quarrelled with her/ and abused her and also disclosed that she will solemnize second marriage of her son. And also threatend to kill her. This message was conveyed to me from my wife. 4. On 22/1/2003, had received message on phone by my distant relative Shri Dhongade stating that my daughter was burnt and they were taking her to civil hospital, Nanded for treatment. Therefore, My self 'my wife' son and brother came to Nanded by jeep. She was admitted in private hospital of Dr. Degloorkar for treatment. I had enquired with my daughter Mangala about the burning incident, she started narrating and disclosed that, her mother in law on 8th of Jan. 2003 came to her house and mother in law had demanded money, she herself and her husband have give some amount but she has not satisfied. She also disclosed that, her mother in law has abused her and insulted her, therefore, she was depressed and further disclosed prior to 2 months her father in law and brother in law also came to her house and demanded money and on that count they quarrelled with her and abused her and also disclosed her father in law has refused to give landed property to her husband. On this count she was mentally depressed and committed suicide by burning herself After four days of her admission in the hospital & Dr, Deglooka, she succumbed to death The accused Nos. 1 to 3 are responsible for committing suicide by my daughter by burning.” PW2 Fakirrao has acted as pancha to inquest panchanama Exh.21. PW3 Pandurang has acted as pancha to spot panchanama Exh.23. PW4 Dr. Ramesh Waghmare, was the Assistant Lecturer, Department of Forensic Science, Government Medical College, Nanded, who had conducted the postmortem examination and prepared P.M. report Exh.25. 1 to 3 are responsible for committing suicide by my daughter by burning.” PW2 Fakirrao has acted as pancha to inquest panchanama Exh.21. PW3 Pandurang has acted as pancha to spot panchanama Exh.23. PW4 Dr. Ramesh Waghmare, was the Assistant Lecturer, Department of Forensic Science, Government Medical College, Nanded, who had conducted the postmortem examination and prepared P.M. report Exh.25. PW5 Indubai Mukale is mother of the deceased. At Exhibit 26, she deposed as under : “1. Mangala was my daughter. She was married with Gajanan on 10/5/1996. prior to the marriage of Gajanan my husband has paid Rs. 25000/- to him for completing D.Ed, education. After completing D.Ed, education the marriage of Mangala was solemnized. On the date of marriage, accused persons have demanded Rs. 10000/- in excess, on that count there was quarrel between accused and my husband. My husband has refused to pay excess amount of Rs. 10000/- and he told the accused already Rs. 25000/- were paid for the D.Ed. education of Gajanan. Thereafter, the marriage was solemnized. After the marriage, accused have maintained my daughter peacefully and properly for one year. On 19/1/2003 I had received message from my daughter Mangala on phone stating that, on 8th of Jan, her mother in law came to her house at Himayatnagar and she has demanded the amount to my daughter Mangala. My daughter has refused to pay the amount to her mother in law and further disclosed her mother-in-law had quarrelled with her severely, and also disclosed her mother- in-law had abused her and threatened to kill and also threatened to solemnize second marriage of her son Gajanan. On the phone I had given understanding to my daughter Managala and told her I will send to her father to her house. 2. On 22/1/2003 at about 6.00 p.m. a message was received on phone from Himayatnagar stating that, Mangala was burnt and taken to Nanded for treatment. Thereafter, My self, my husband, brother in law and son came to Nanded and came to the Hospital of Dr. Degloorkat and saw Mangala, she was taking treatment in the hospital. she was completely burnt. On 22/1/2003 at about 6.00 p.m. a message was received on phone from Himayatnagar stating that, Mangala was burnt and taken to Nanded for treatment. Thereafter, My self, my husband, brother in law and son came to Nanded and came to the Hospital of Dr. Degloorkat and saw Mangala, she was taking treatment in the hospital. she was completely burnt. I had enquired her about the occurrence of incident and she was burnt, she also disclosed that her mother in law came to her house at Himayatnagar and quarrelled with her on account of demand of money from her parents and threatened to kill her and also threatened to solemnized second marriage of her son Gajanan., and also refused to give share in the agriculture land. she further disclosed that the abuses and illtreatment given by mother in law could not tolerated by her and due to anger, she was burnt herself by pouring kerosene on her person, she also stated in the hospital, her brother-in-law had quarreled with her and refused to give share in the land to her husband and abused in filthy language. The father in law demanding money and on that count he was quarreling with her. The accused Nos.1 to 3 are responsible for committing suicide by Mangala by burning herself” PW6 Dr. Ganesh Degloorkar, Private Practitioner at Nanded, in his Hospital, deceased was admitted for treatment. At Exh. 28, he deposed as under : “1. On 22/1/2003, the patient Mangal Gajanan Dherne was admitted in my private hospital for treatment as indoor patient at 8.30 p.m. The patient was burnt I had enquired with the patient as to what happened she disclosed that she was burnt. Immediately, I informed the police Vazirabad. The patient was burnt 98%. The letter now shown tone is sent to P.S.I. Vazitabad. It bears my sighature, same is at Exh. 29. The patt patient was died on 26/1/2003 at 10.30 p.m. I also informed the police Vazirabad by letter. The letter now shown to me is the same. It bears my signature, its contents are true and correct, it is at Exh. 30. I had given antiboitic saline to the patient during her treatment. The patient was burnt entirely except some part. Thereafter police referred the dead body to civil hospital, Nanded for P.M.” PW7 Vitthal Bulbule, Special Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded the dying declaration of deceased. It bears my signature, its contents are true and correct, it is at Exh. 30. I had given antiboitic saline to the patient during her treatment. The patient was burnt entirely except some part. Thereafter police referred the dead body to civil hospital, Nanded for P.M.” PW7 Vitthal Bulbule, Special Judicial Magistrate, who has recorded the dying declaration of deceased. At Exh. 35 he deposed as under : “1. On 17/1/2003 to 23/1/2003 I have worked as a S.J.M. at Nanded. On 22/1/2003 at 10.15 p.m. I received requisition from P.S. Vazirabad, for recording D.D. of injured Mangal Gajanan Dherne. Thereafter, Immediately, went to private hospital of Dr. Degloorkar. The requisition now shown to me is same. it bears mt endorsement and for receipt of requisition. It is signed by me. It also bears signature of PSO Vazirabad, Nanded, same is at Exh. 37. Thereafter, I have contacted with the Dr. Degloorkar, and disclosed him that I have to record statement of patient Mangal Gajanan Dherne. Thereafter, Doctor took me to the room of patient and them doctor has examined the patient in my presence At that time, patient was unconscious therefore Doctor gave endorsement to that effect and requested me to record her statement on next day. 2. Thereafter, on 23/1/2003 at 10.30 A.M. I again went to private hospital of Dr, Degloorkar and disclosed him that I have to record statement of Mangal then doctor has examined the patient and disclosed that patient is conscious and well oriented for recording statement, and made endorsement to that effect vide Exh. 32. Thereafter, I have asked the relatives of the patient to go out of the room, Before recording the statement of the patient. I ascertained and satisfied that the patient is conscious and they I recorded her statement. I had enquired her name, place of residence, hunsband's name, she had given answers to the questions. Thereafter, I started recording statement of injured in the question answer form. I have asked her what is her name, she has disclosed her name as Mangal Gajanan Dherne and then I asked second question where and when the incident had taken place, she had answered that it was taken place at 6.00 p.m. in her house at Himayatnagar I put third question about occurrence of the incident. I have asked her what is her name, she has disclosed her name as Mangal Gajanan Dherne and then I asked second question where and when the incident had taken place, she had answered that it was taken place at 6.00 p.m. in her house at Himayatnagar I put third question about occurrence of the incident. She had answered that her mother-in-law, father-in-law were quarreling with her, and her brother in law had assaulted her therefore, she herself put kerosene on her person and set on fire. I have read over the contents of statement to her. She has admitted it as true and correct. Therefore, I obtained her C.D. on her statement. Then I issued certificate stating that D.D. is recorded as per the say of patient, it is read over her, she admit it as true and correct and I believe that the D.D. is given voluntarily. It is completed at 11.05 a.m. and I have signed below the endorsement. Thereafter, Doctor has make endorsement stating that, patient was conscious through out the statement and she was well oriented. The statement now shown to me is the same. It is in my own hand writing, it's contents are true and correct. It is at Exh. 38, and the certificate is at Exh. 39. PW8 Sanjay, i.e. brother of deceased, is examined at Exh.43, wherein he deposed as under : “1. Mangal was my younger sister. Her marriage was solemnized with Gajanan on 10 the May 1996 at Dhanora. Savita is daughter of accused Dnyanoba. She is my wife. The accused No. s1 and 2 father-in-law and mother-in-law of my sister and accused No. 3 brother-in-law were harassing and illtreating my sister Mangala on account of demand of money. After marriage, accused have maintained my sister peacefully and properly for one year and they started to ill-treat her, on account of demand of money. The brother-in-law of Mangal accused No. 3 was assaulting my sister on account of demand of Money and ill treating her. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were ill- treating to my sister on the ground that she was black in colour and were refusing to give the share in the land to the husband of my sister. On this count, all accused were ill treating mentally and physically to Mangal. 2. On 7/1/2003. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 were ill- treating to my sister on the ground that she was black in colour and were refusing to give the share in the land to the husband of my sister. On this count, all accused were ill treating mentally and physically to Mangal. 2. On 7/1/2003. the accused No. 2 who is my mother in law came to my house at Nanded, at that time she was telling that she has to go to Hinnyatnagar, where my sister Aangal was residing. I told accused No. 2 not to go to Himayatnagar for illtreating my sister. and also not to quarrel with her and not to demand her money. without giving any response to se on next day 1.e. On 8/1/2003 accused No. 2 Saraswatibai went to Himayat nagar. Thereafter, 8 to 10 days, Mangal has disclosed me that her mother in law Saraswatibal came to Himayat nagar and further disclosed that she has abused her and was demanding money. 3. Thereafter, on 22/1/2003, I had received a massage on phone stating that my sister Mangal was burnt and she was bringing to Nanded for treatment. Thereafter, she was admitted in the private hospital of dr. Degloorkar, and met to Mangala who was taking treatment and enquired with her how she was burnt, she told me her mother-in-law, father-in-law and brother in law were always demanding her money and quarreling her and giving her illtreating and refused to give share of her husband in agricultural land. On 8/1/2003 and further disclosed, On 8/1/2003 her mother in law accused No. 2 came to Himayatnagar to her house and was demanding money when she has refused to give the money, her mother in law annoyed and started abusing her in filthy language, and refused to give the share in the agri. land and also threatened that she will marry of her son with another girl. My sister disclosed all these facts to me in the hospital. PW9 Savita, i.e. sister-in-law of deceased, is examined at Exh.53, wherein he deposed as under : “1. The accused No. 1 is my father and accused No. 2 is my mother and accused No.3 is brother. Deceased Mangala was my sister-in-law. She was married accused have maintained my sister in law Mangala peacefully and properly and thereafter, they started to ill-treat her on account of demand of money. The accused No. 1 is my father and accused No. 2 is my mother and accused No.3 is brother. Deceased Mangala was my sister-in-law. She was married accused have maintained my sister in law Mangala peacefully and properly and thereafter, they started to ill-treat her on account of demand of money. Wheneber accused were quarrel to deceased "angala at that time husband of Mangala keeps silence. Whenever, deceased Mangala came to my house at that time she used to disclosed about the ill-treatment by her in-laws and when ever I used to go to the house of my parents, the accused were ill-treating Mangala on account of demand of money. Number of times I have given understanding to my parents and brother not to ill- treat Mangal and maintain her properly and I also sent letter stating to maintain Mangala peacefully and properly and not to ill-treat her. I have sent letter on 1/8/2002 i.e. prior to the incident. In that letter I have written to my parents to maintain Mangala peacefully and properly and not to ill-treat and harass her on account of demand of Rs.10000/-. I can identify the letter if shown to me. The letter now shown to me is the same. It is my in my own hand writing. It is signed by me and its contents are true and correct. same is at Exh. 54. 2. Prior to incident at the time of Dasra festival, Mangala was brought to my house, at that time she was weeping and disclosed me her in laws were ill-treating her on account of demand of money. Thereafter, I have sent above letter Exh. 54. to my parents. After sending letter at the time of Nagpanchimi festival I went to the house of accused who are my parents. At that time my parents and brother had quarrelled with me and saying that. whether I was too wise and why I had sent them letter. Accused No. 3 is drunker and he ins thrown the said letter to wards me. Thereafter, I took the said letter and kept it in suitcase and on next day with anger I returned back to my house. PW10 Anil Kottawar, ASI, who has recorded the statement of deceased and other witnesses and prepared arrest panchanama Exh.69. PW11 Vithal Lathe, API, is the Investigation Officer. 8. Thereafter, I took the said letter and kept it in suitcase and on next day with anger I returned back to my house. PW10 Anil Kottawar, ASI, who has recorded the statement of deceased and other witnesses and prepared arrest panchanama Exh.69. PW11 Vithal Lathe, API, is the Investigation Officer. 8. Defence has also adduced evidence of one witness namely Gajanan, i.e. husband of deceased. At Exh. 76, he deposed as under : “1. The accused No.1 and 2 are my parents and accused No. 3 Datta is my brother. Deceased Mangala was my wife. My marriage with Mangal was solemnized on 10/5/1995. During wedlock period my wife has begotten two children by name Shubham and Krushikesh. My son Krushekesh is born on 21/8/1996 and date of birth of shubham in 23/1/2002. I am H.S.C. D.Ed. After completing D.Ed. Course, I got job of teacher. I joined the service after 7 to 8 months of the marriage. 2. My brother Datta is doing agriculture work. My father and brother by name. Gyanoba and Patta were having 10 acres of land at Niwgha. My father had purchased the land in his own name, admeasuring 4 acres. My brother Datta is having 6 acres of land in his own name. Initially accused No. 3 Datta was cultivating gairan land adm. 4 acres and Datta was entered his name as cultivator and thereafter he purchased 2 acres land adjacent to above 4 acres land. 3. Accused No. 3 Datta is residing separate with his wife and children at Niwgha, prior to my marriage, he is elder to me. The incident is dated 22/1/2003 at 6.00 p.m. At the time of incident, I was present in my house There are two rooms one toilet and bath room in my house. One is drawing room second is kitchen room. I am residing in rented room at Himayat nagar having ceiling of R.C.C. At the time of incident, my wife Mangal was preparing meal on stove. At the time of incident Mangal was wearing polyester Saree. At the time of incident I was sitting in front of my house. I heard the noise of blast in my house, therefore, immediately rushed in side the house and went to kitchen. I saw there my wife Nangal was burnt I tried to extinguish fire by taking my wife towards bath room and pouring water on her person. At the time of incident I was sitting in front of my house. I heard the noise of blast in my house, therefore, immediately rushed in side the house and went to kitchen. I saw there my wife Nangal was burnt I tried to extinguish fire by taking my wife towards bath room and pouring water on her person. My both hands were burnt Thereafter, immediately I took my wife to private hospital for treatment at Himayatnagar, Doctor advised me to take the injured to civil hospital, Nanded for treatment. Immediately after the incident, I informed to my parents and parents of my wife and asked them to come to Nanded. I brought my wife in private hospital Nanded, of Dr. Degloorkar at 9.30 p.m. Thereafter, my parents and parents of Mangal came to hospital, immediately. My wife was admitted in the hospital of Dr. Degloorkar, The father of my wife has deposited advance of Rs. 5000/- to doctor for treatment. Thereafter, treatment was continued. Thereafter Doctor demanded further advance of Rs. 25000/- at that time my father in-law has told me to deposit that amount- At that time my parents have raised objection for depositing the advance money by me. At that time my mother in law annoyed to my parents stating why they were any objection when I was ready to deposit the amount. Thereafter, there was dispute between my parents and the parents of my wife. Thereafter, my mother in law was intent to file report against my parents and they filed the report. 4. From the time of admission till death of my wife, I was in hospital with my wife. My mother-in-law, father-in-law, and brother- in-law were present near my wife, where as my parents were not near my wife. My wife was fully burnt, and she was receiving burnt injuries. Her both hands, legs and other part of her body were severely burnt, Her face was having swelling due to burn injured. She was unable to talk. I did not talk with my wife in hospital while she was taking treatment, nor she talk with any other person in the hospital. Thereafter, police came in the hospital and enquired with the parents of my wife about the occurrence of incident, as per their say police recorded statement of my wife. A Magistrate also came in the hospital. I did not talk with my wife in hospital while she was taking treatment, nor she talk with any other person in the hospital. Thereafter, police came in the hospital and enquired with the parents of my wife about the occurrence of incident, as per their say police recorded statement of my wife. A Magistrate also came in the hospital. While Magistrate was recording statement of my wife at that time I was present near my wife. My wife was not in a position to give statement to Magistrate. My wife died on 26/1/2003 and her funeral was completed at the house of her parents at Dhanora. I my self has present at the time of funeral of my wife. My parents and in other relatives were also present at that time.” ANALYSIS 8. Before adverting to the facts of the case in hand, it would be apt to discuss the settled legal position on the aspect of charge under Sections 498-A. Law on Section 498-A IPC : There are series of judgments wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly observed and held that in case of general, vague and omnibus allegations without specifying role or giving specific instances of cruelty, charge of Section 498-A would not automatically get attracted. Such observations are reflected in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others [Appeal (Crl.) 688-90 of 1993 decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 26.04.2000]; State of Andhra Pradesh v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582 ; Neelu Chopra and another v. Bharti, (2009) 10 SCC 184 ; Geeta Mehrotra Vs. State of U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741 ; Bhaskar Lal Sharma and Anr. v. Monica and Ors., AIR 2014 SC (Supp) 1310; K. Subba Rao v. The State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 wherein, as to what constitutes offence under Section 498-A and when it can be said to be made out has been dealt and discussed. Even very recently, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2024) 3 SCC 573 observed that, to constitute offence of cruelty, there has to be incessant or continuous form of cruelty. Likewise, in the case of Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) SCC Online SC 2989, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, by way of evidence, specific acts and role of accused has to be demonstrated for attracting Section 498-A IPC. Likewise, in the case of Yashodeep Bisanrao Vadode v. State of Maharashtra, (2024) SCC Online SC 2989, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that, by way of evidence, specific acts and role of accused has to be demonstrated for attracting Section 498-A IPC. Again, in the most recent case of Dara Lakshmi Narayana and others v. State of Telangana and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 3682, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed, “mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case arising out of matrimonial dispute, without specific allegation, indicating their active involvement should be nipped in the bud”. Charge under Section 498-A. 9. Witnesses can be categorized as family members, medical experts and authorities, who recorded dying declarations and finally Investigating Officer. Here, crucial evidence of father, mother, brother and sister-in-law of deceased, i.e. daughter of present appellant. Their examination in chief has already been reproduced in aforesaid paragraphs. 10. Informant, father of deceased seems to have deposed that after marriage, his daughter went to cohabit with accused, who resided jointly, however, in his cross, he categorically admitted that, his daughter and son in law Gajanan were staying at Nanded. Whereas the accused parents in law and brother in law are apparently resided at different place. Father-informant has testified that initially appellants had agreed to purchase land in the name of Gajanan, but actually it was purchased in the name of Datta, i.e. accused No.3. Then, he alleges demand of Rs.10,000/- being raised, and accused persons quarreling with his daughter abusing her in filthy language, insulting her and even suspecting her character. However, who amongst the three did it has not specified or clarified. He alleges taunting on complexion and for not preparing meals properly, but again, who amongst the three indulged in such behavior has been elaborated by him. It seems that, he alleges hearing about abusing and insulting his daughter during her visits to maternal house at the time of Diwali and Panchami. Here, marriage is of the year 1996 and suicide is in the year 2003. Therefore, during festival of which year above reporting was made by deceased has not been stated by him. Then, he alleges mother-in-law visited house of his daughter on 08.01.2003 and demanded money, which was allegedly agreed at the time of marriage. It is to be noted that the said visit is attributed in the year 2003. Therefore, during festival of which year above reporting was made by deceased has not been stated by him. Then, he alleges mother-in-law visited house of his daughter on 08.01.2003 and demanded money, which was allegedly agreed at the time of marriage. It is to be noted that the said visit is attributed in the year 2003. He claims to have learnt about above visit of mother in law from his daughter on 19.01.2003 i.e. after almost after 12 days. Above all, his testimony that there was demand of excess amount; initial agreement of purchasing of agriculture land in the name of Gajanan, but it being purchase in the name of Datta; about accused persons abusing in filthy language; insulting her or suspecting her character; taunting on complexion and inability to cook food properly are apparently shown to be omissions, which he admits in para 10 of cross to be not finding place to his statement to police. 11. As regards to PW-5, mother of deceased is concerned, even she alleges demand of Rs.10,000/-, but her such allegations are directed against all accused. Whereas her husband/informant attributed demand to Gajanan. Further, this witness has not deposed like her husband about any agriculture land earlier decided to be purchased by the accused persons in the name of Gajanan, but later on it being purchased in the name of Datta. Her testimony is regarding receiving phon calls from her daughter on 19.01.2003 regarding visit of accused mother in law to her house on 08.01.2003 and putting up demand of money, abusing her and even threatening to kill. This witness has not defined role of father in law and brother in law and has made general allegations by stating that all accused demanded and ill-treated to her daughter. Likewise, by this witness answer given in the para 6 shows that, there is material omissions regarding accused persons demanding excess Rs.10,000/- and about demand and ill treatment by mother in law and it becoming intolerable, and hence, her daughter committing suicide. PW-8, bother of deceased testified about harassment and ill treatment to his sister by accused persons on account of demand of money. Thus, he too has raised sweeping allegations against all. It is pertinent to note that he does not depose about demand of Rs.10,000/- as deposed by his parents. PW-8, bother of deceased testified about harassment and ill treatment to his sister by accused persons on account of demand of money. Thus, he too has raised sweeping allegations against all. It is pertinent to note that he does not depose about demand of Rs.10,000/- as deposed by his parents. He also gives contrary version by deposing that accused No.3 assaulted his sister, which is not coming from the mouth of his parents. He also defers from his parents by stating that, accused persons refused to give share to the husband of his sister, which is also not stated by his parents. His version further deferes from his parents, because he deposed about mother in law first coming to his place on 07.01.2003 and he giving her understanding to not to ill treat his sister, but she still going to his sisters place and putting up demand of money. Such version is not stated by his own parents. In paragraphs 10 of cross, omissions are brought regarding ill treatment to his sister on the basis of her complexion. PW-9 is also crucial witnesses for prosecution and surprisingly, she is none other than daughter of appellant Nos.1 and 2 and sister of appellant No.3. She claims to have learnt about ill-treatment to her sister in law and claims to have learnt from deceased and further claims that whenever she visited house of her own accused parents, they were ill treating her sister in law on account of demand of money. She has not stated that, demand of Rs.10,000/- towards excess amount, which was agreed, but had remained unpaid. Firstly, she has not stated when exactly she went to the house of accused, and when exactly deceased reported her. She claims that, she even communicated by way of letter to her accused parents, requesting them not to harass deceased on account of demand of Rs.10,000/- and she also identified said letter Exhibit-54, but surprisingly, while under cross, she admitted that police never recorded her statement and gave explanation that she was ill. Her answers in pargraph 5 of cross shows that she is ignorant about her father purchasing land way back in the year 1972. She admitted that her brother Data- accused No.3 resided at his own house at Niwgha with his family and children. Her answers in pargraph 5 of cross shows that she is ignorant about her father purchasing land way back in the year 1972. She admitted that her brother Data- accused No.3 resided at his own house at Niwgha with his family and children. She answered that the letter that she had brought back from her parents house was tried to be given to police, but it was not accepted by police and further suggested her to tender it directly in the Court. In cross, she claims to have learnt about ill treatment to deceased from parents of deceased, but in chief she has already stated that during her visits to her parents deceased had herself had told her. The letter which is taken on record, is not proved to be author by her. However, her testimony, does not show exactly when she met deceased and learnt about demand and ill treatment, and she makes general allegations that there was ill treatment to deceased by her own parents, but she has not give specific instances or nature of ill treatment and by which of the accused. Consequently, to sum up the above evidence of parents and brother of deceased it is emerging that, they are all leveling sweeping, general and omnibus allegations. Particulars and instances of physical and mental harassment has not been stated by any of them. Here, there are three accused. Specific roles are not made clear. Marriage is of the year 1996 and report is of the year January, 2003. For above reasons, when there is nothing to show that there was continuous or incessant demand followed by harassment, charge of 498-A cannot be said to be brought home. Charge under Section 306 of the IPC. 12. According to prosecution, deceased immolated herself because of cruelty and harassment at the hands of accused persons, who are her in laws. For attracting said charge, it has to be demonstrated that there was abetment, inducement or enticement to commit suicide. Law is loud and clear by umpteen judgments that there has to be active participation in abetting suicide. It has to be demonstrated that accused persons charged with the said offence had means rea. For attracting said charge, it has to be demonstrated that there was abetment, inducement or enticement to commit suicide. Law is loud and clear by umpteen judgments that there has to be active participation in abetting suicide. It has to be demonstrated that accused persons charged with the said offence had means rea. It has to be established that harassment was with sole intention that deceased should end life or it should be shown that accused persons created circumstances, which were of such nature that, deceased was forced to end up life. Law to this extent has been expounded and reiterated time to time and few landmark known cases that could be referred as under: 13. In State of West Bengal v. Orilal Jaiswal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has cautioned that the Court should be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case and the evidence adduced in the trial for the purpose of finding whether the cruelty meted out to the victim had in fact induced her to end her life by committing suicide. If it appears to the Court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and difference in domestic life, quite common to the society, to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and difference were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the conscience of the Court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged of abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilt. 14. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , it is observed that, “Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’. To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. 15. In M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 , while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under :- “7. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. 15. In M. Arjunan v. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, (2019) 3 SCC 315 , while explaining the necessary ingredients of Section 306 IPC in detail, observed as under :- “7. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are : (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.” 16. In Ude Sing & others v. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in order to convict an accused under Section 306 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible with regard to determining the culpability. It was observed as under :- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. 16.1 For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self- esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 17. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC 200 , the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids by any act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing, a person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. 18. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified under Section 107 IPC, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. 18. In Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and another, (2021) 19 SCC 144 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the provision of Section 306 IPC along with the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC and observed as under : “14. Section 306 of IPC makes abetment of suicide a criminal offence and prescribes punishment for the same. . . . 15. The ordinary dictionary meaning of the word ‘instigate’ is to bring about or initiate, incite someone to do something. This Court in Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618 , has defined the word ‘instigate’ as under :- “20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do ‘an act’.” 16. The scope and ambit of Section 107 IPC and its co- relation with Section 306 IPC has been discussed repeatedly by this Court. In the case or S.S. Cheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan and Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 190 , it was observed as under : - “25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 19. In Mariano Anto Bruno & another v. The Inspector of Police, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387, after referring to the above referred decisions rendered in context of culpability under Section 306 IPC, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under : “44. . . . It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. . . . It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.” 20. In Kashibai & Others v. The State of Karnataka, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 575, it is observed that to bring the case within the purview of ‘Abetment’ under Section 107 IPC, there has to be an evidence with regard to the instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid on the part of the accused and for the purpose proving the charge under Section 306 IPC, also there has to be an evidence with regard to the positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid to drive a person to commit suicide. 21. In very recent case of Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana, 2024 DGLS (SC) 224/ (2024) 3 SCC 573 it is observed that, had there been any clinching evidence of incessant harassment on account of which the wife was left with no other option but to put an end to her life, it could have been said that the accused intended the consequences of his act, namely, suicide. A person intends a consequence when he (1) foresees that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and (2) desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test).” 22. In another recent case of Kumar @ Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal No. 1427 of 2011 decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court on 01.03.2024], following observations are made: “39. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (2011) 3 SCC 626 , this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Reverting back to the decision in M. Mohan (2011) 3 SCC 626 , this Court observed that abetment would involve a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. Delineating the intention of the legislature and having regard to the ratio of the cases decided by this Court, it was concluded that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It would also require an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no other option and that this act of the accused must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.” 23. Bearing above legal precedents in mind and reverting to facts, here, marriage of Gajanan and deceased is of 10.05.1996. Suicide by immolation is of 22.01.2003. Prosecution witness themselves admit that deceased, her husband and accused persons resided at distinct places. Parents of deceased deposed about learning from deceased about demand and ill-treatment during her visits at the time of Diwali and Panchami, but of which year has not been clarified. Dying declaration of deceased has been recorded resulting into registration of Crime. Said DD for proper comprehension is reproduced as under: “STATEMENT Myself Sau. Mangal W/o Gajanan Dharne, Age 25 years, Occupation: Household work, R/at HimayatNagar, Nanded. Upon asking personally states that, I am residing at the above mentioned place and got married 6 years ago and have two children. Me and my husband resides in Himayatnagar with children as my husband is a teacher. Prior to 8 to 10 days my mother-in-law, Saraswati Bai, came to me and she started quarreling with me and saying that she does not give us anything like farm at the village. Before that, two or three months ago, my father-in-law Gyanoba came and abused me too. Dated 22 01. 2003, on the morning of Dated 22.01.2003, my husband went to his work place as usual and came back in the evening. At that time, when my husband was at home, I took out the kerosene can from my house, poured kerosene on my person and set myself on fire. So my whole body is burnt. Dated 22 01. 2003, on the morning of Dated 22.01.2003, my husband went to his work place as usual and came back in the evening. At that time, when my husband was at home, I took out the kerosene can from my house, poured kerosene on my person and set myself on fire. So my whole body is burnt. My In-laws and brother-in-law Datta always used to come to Himayatnagar and abused me, I got tired of their trouble and set myself on fire by pouring kerosene on my body. However, I am praying that legal action should be taken against them. My this statement is written as per my say and read over to me, it is correct and true as per my sayings.” 24. It is clearly emerging from above DD that, deceased poured kerosene on herself and ignited herself in her own house on 22.01.2003. In her statement, she has reported that 08 to 10 days back, mother in law Swarswatibai had come, quarreled with her for not giving anything like farm at village and that 2 to 3 months ago, father in law came and abused her. On 22.01.2003, when her husband went to his workplace, and returning the evening and while they both were in the house, she poured kerosene on herself and set herself on fire and thereby holds parents in laws, brother in law for coming to her house, troubling her. What is discerned from above text is that, on 22.01.2003, none of the appellant is around deceased. Only she and her husband are in the house. Visit by mother in law is of said to be 8 to 10 days back and visit of father in law is said to be 2 to 3 months back. Visit of brother in law is not stated by her. Therefore, in proximity to 22.01.2003, when neither of the appellants had come in contact with deceased by any mode, or form, the question of they abetting her suicide does not arise at all. There is apparently a gap of almost 2 weeks between alleged visit of sole surviving appellant to the house of deceased and therefore, said suicide, by no means can be attributed to mother in law. 25. Perused the judgment and the observations of learned Trial Court. There is apparently a gap of almost 2 weeks between alleged visit of sole surviving appellant to the house of deceased and therefore, said suicide, by no means can be attributed to mother in law. 25. Perused the judgment and the observations of learned Trial Court. In the considered opinion of this Court, appreciation of evidence is not on the line of legal requirements. Settled principles have not been taken into account. General and sweeping allegations are accepted and charges are held to be proved. Resultantly, in the considered opinion of this Court, the above appreciation apparently being incorrect, cannot be allowed to be sustained. Therefore, it is a fit case for interference at the hands of this Court. Accordingly, I proceed to pass following order : ORDER: (i) Criminal Appeal No.499 of 2004 is allowed. (ii) The conviction awarded to appellant No.2 Saraswatibai W/o Gyanoba Derne in Sessions Case No.90 of 2003 by the learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded on 05.08.2004 for the offence punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, stands quashed and set aside. (iii) The appellant No.2 Saraswatibai W/o Gyanoba Derne stands acquitted of the offence punishable under 498-A, 306 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The bail bonds of appellant no.2 stand cancelled. (v) The fine amount deposited, if any, be refunded to appellant No.2 Saraswatibai W/o Gyanoba Derne after the statutory period. (vi) It is clarified that there is no change as regards the order in respect of disposal of muddemal.