DINANATH RAMARAO SHIRSE Vs. UTTAM BABURAO KALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By his judgment dated 10th July, 1986 in Sessions Case No. 42 of 1986, the learned Sessions Judge, Aurangabad acquitted the accused Nos. 1 and 2 of the offence punishable under Section 306 (attempt to commit suicide), Section 498-A (cruelty to the wife) of Indian Penal Code. The complainant has preferred this revision application. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. Rule was issued only against respondent No. 1, therefore, this order will apply only against respondent No.1. In my opinion, the learned trial Judge has committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent No. 1. The reasons are in the following paragraphs.

(2.) Kadubai was the daughter of Dinanath Shirse P.W. 1 and Tulsabai P.W. 2. According to the prosecution, Kadubai was illtreated by her husband Uttam who is respondent No. 1 and members of the family. The illtreatment consisted of beating, asking her to bring money from her father for purchasing water pipe, food grains and so on. Threats were issued that she will be killed like another woman, who is supposed to have been killed in the said village. On 11 th March, 1985, Kadubai, the deceased was found with convulsions. She was taken to the dispensary, where she was pronounced dead.

(3.) The evidence of Dr. Shaikh Mukhtar is that Kadubai died due to acute poisoning. In the viscera, a compound, which is the ingredient of insecticide 'Malethion' was found. The oral evidence consists of testimony of Dinanath P.W. 1 her father and Tulsabai P.W. 2, her mother and her brother Kachra. It is their evidence, that is relevant for the purpose of considering the offence punishable under Section 498-A. The learned trial Judge found that there was no evidence about the suicidal nature of her death. In my opinion, the learned trial Judge is entirely right because the evidence does not reveal whether, the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal. But after coming to the conclusion that Kadubai did not commit suicide, the learned trial Judge came to a conclusion, which does not rationally follow from the above conclusion. His conclusion about the offence under Section 498-A is in these words -