STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRAKASH @ BANDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) State is hereby assailing the judgment and order passed in Sessions Case No.111 of 2003 by learned 2nd Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Osmanabad dtd. 7/10/2005 acquitting present respondent from charges under Sec. 498-A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

(2.) Deceased Swati @ Savita Prakash Yadav wife of Respondent no.1 consumed poison on 15/7/2003 while she was residing at the matrimonial house. Case of prosecution is that, all accused persons including husband and in-laws maltreated Swati @ Savita on demand of Rs.50,000.00 for borewell, there was taunting to her, saying that, they disliked her and thirdly, she was kept starved on account of their demand not being met. Further case of prosecution is that, getting fed up of the ill treatment, Swati committed suicide and hence on report to that extent lodged by PW2 father, crime was registered, investigated and accused were charge sheeted and were made to face trial, which ultimately ended up in acquittal. Hence, the appeal by State.

(3.) Learned APP would submit that, husband and in-laws barely after 2 months of marriage, put up demand of Rs.50,000.00 for purchasing agricultural land and borewell. That, deceased Savita was kept starved for not meeting the demand. She reported regarding above treatment during her visit a few days prior to the suicide. That, parents and uncle of deceased have consistently deposed. That, their evidence has been unshaken. That, they are lending support and corroborated each other on the point of mental and physical harassment in the backdrop of their demand. That, getting fed up of the same, Swati cosnsumed poison. There was no other reason for her to end up her precious life. That, suicide is committed while she was in custody of accused persons and therefore, according to learned APP, when all necessary ingredients for attracting ill treatment i.e. under Sec. 498A of IPC and inducing suicide being available, learned trial court ought to have held prosecution case as proved and punished the accused, but instead, they are all acquitted. There is improper appreciation of both, law as well as evidence and hence she urges for interference by allowing the appeal.