JAIPRAKASH BADRINARAYAN RATHI Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Joshi for the petitioners and Mr.R.Y.Mirza for the State/respondent.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order of IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik, dated 29th March 1996. Petitioner No.3 Nilesh was in love with deceased Ujwala Prakash Boob. Their love affairs was going on for about four years prior to 1.1.1995 when Ujwala committed suicide by consuming poison. The matter was inquired by the police and on 14.7.1995 F.I.R. was lodged by one Prakash Boob who was the father of Ujwala. Thereafter statement of relatives of Ujwala were recorded and all of them are alleging that in a meeting which took place between the parents of Ujwala on one side and parents of Nilesh on other side on 6.7.1995, a demand of Rs.25 to Rs.30 lacs was made by the petitioners for financing photo laboratory of petitioner No.3 Nilesh. It is the case of the prosecution that this demand and inability of the parents of Ujwala to fulfil that demand resulting in breaking of marriage tie, resulted in Ujwala committed suicide on 7.7.1995.

(3.) IT was mainly contended by the counsel for the petitioners Mr.Joshi that even if the prosecution case is accepted as it is, without going into the question of apparent contradictions in the statements of the witnesses recorded on 10.7.1995 and those recorded on 16.7.1995, it could not be said that at least the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 who are the parents petitioner No.3 Nilesh and petitioner No.4 who is the maternal uncle of Nilesh abetted commission of suicide by Ujwala. Mr.Joshi for the petitioners contended that even if it is accepted for the sake of arguments that on 6.7.1995 in the meeting for setting the marriage, petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 had demanded an amount of Rs.25 to Rs.30 lacs, it could not be said that their intention was to drive Ujwala to commit suicide. He contended that at the most it can be said that they wanted to break the marriage tie or that the marriage between Ujwala and Nilesh does not take place. According to Mr.Joshi, the so called demand of Rs.25 to Rs.30 lacs by petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 could not amount to abetment as defined in Indian Penal Code. The word abetment has been defined under Section 107 under the caption of Abetment of a thing and it States as: