STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. PRABHAKAR RAMKRISHNA SHIRALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 18th December 1984 in Sessions Case No. 29 of 1984 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, acquitted the respondents-accused of tile charge under sections 498A and 306 I.P.C.

(2.) This is a very unfortunate case wherein the daughter-in-law of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 accused Nos. 1 and 2, Sunita, committed suicide by burning within about seven months of the marriage. The accused No.1 is the father-in-law and the accused No.2 is the mother-in-law of the deceased. Respondent No.3 accused No.3 is the brother-in-law of the deceased. Mrs. Vimal Balkrishna Chikhalikar (P.W. 2) is the mother and Balkrishna Shripad Chikhalikar (P.W. 5) is the father of the deceased. The deceased at the age of about 22 years was married according to Vedic rites to Uday, son of the accused Nos. 1 and 2 and the brother of the accused No.3. The parents of Sunita resided at Miraj and her matrimonial house was at Sangli at a distance of about seven miles from Miraj, The marriage took place on 21st November 1983 and Sunita committed suicide by burning herself on 12th May 1984. On 12th May 1984 at about 8.30 a.m. Sunita poured kerosene on herself and set her on fire. She was admitted to the Mission Hospital, Miraj. The matter was reported to the police and the police arranged for recording her dying declaration. Naib Tahsildar Madhusudan Baburao Jadhav (P.W. 1) reached the hospital at about 2.25 p.m. and her recorded the statement of Sunita. It is at Ex. 13. Sunita had 90 degree burns and she succumbed to those burns at 4.30 p.m. In the dying declaration Ex. 13 she gave out that she was ill-treated by her father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law (accused) and they often taunted her saying that she was of black complexion and was not a match for her husband Uday. She also stated therein that on the day before the date of the incident her mother-in-law (accused No.2) gave her abuses and rushed at her to beat her. She also stated that her mother-in-law asked her to leave the house and said that she should die, and, therefore, on the next day, that is, on 12th May 1984, in the morning she set herself on fire. The police after necessary investigation prosecuted the father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother-in-law of the deceased for the offences mentioned above. The defence was of complete denial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on considering the evidence adduced by the prosecution found that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased was treated with cruelty by the accused and as a result thereof she was driven to commit suicide. Therefore, he acquitted the accused. The State has preferred this appeal against the acquittal.

(3.) The learned Public Prosecutor Mrs. S.S. Keluskar took us through the dying declaration Ex. 13 of deceased Sunita and also other evidence on record. She contends that it is improbable that the deceased would make false allegations against her father-in-law, mother-in-law and the brother- law (accused) while she was on death bed. She also submits that the deceased, who had no complaint against her husband, would not be driven to commit suicide within about seven months of the marriage unless her living at the matrimonial house had been made miserable by the unbecoming conduct of the accused. She submits that the deceased hailed from a well off family from Miraj, at a distance of only seven miles from Sangli. The marriage of the deceased was an arranged marriage. The in-laws and the husband of the deceased had seen her and approved her before the marriage. She submits that after the marriage for some days they treated her well, but later on they started troubling her by saying that she, being of black complexion, was not a match for her husband. She also submits that the letter dated 25th April 1984 (Ex. 20) written by the respondent No; 1 accused No.1 father-in-law to the father of the deceased (P.W. 5) clearly indicates that the father-in-law had no good opinion about the deceased. On the contrary, he found fault with her behaviour at the matrimonial house and advised the father of the deceased to keep her in an or change. She submits that the father-in-law found fault with the childish behaviour of the deceased and as such he bore a grudge against her. She submits that a girl of the age of the deceased when goes to the matrimonial house, the members of the matrimonial house should not expect that she should at once give up her likes and dislikes and habits and should immediately adjust to the atmosphere in the matrimonial house. She submits that it was true that the matrimonial family of the deceased was not as affluent as her parents family, but at the same time the members of the matrimonial house of the deceased were not at all cultured and did not know how to treat the girl coming from another family with affection. She submits that on the contrary the members of the matrimonial family started teasing the deceased and found fault with every action of hers and, therefore, the deceased often had to go to her parents house. She submits that though she went to the house of her parents often, she did not reside there, and her husband admits that whenever she went to her parents house he accompanied her. Her husband had no grievance against her for visiting her parental house.