AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anand Vasant Nirgude, J.—All these appeals arise from judgment and order dated 23rd March, 2000, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, in Sessions Case No. 142 of 1992. Appeals Nos. 145 of 2000 and 158 of 2000 are filed by original accused against their conviction u/s 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Criminal Appeal No. 257 of 2000 is State''s appeal against acquittal of the two accused from the offence punishable u/s 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the alternative u/s 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Let us call the parties by their designation in the trial Court. The appellants in Criminal Appeal Nos. 145 of 2000 and 158 of 2000 were accused Nos. 1 and 2 in the Sessions Case. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in the alternative they were charged for the offence punishable u/s 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
It was alleged that the accused were involved in illicit relation, and therefore, they committed murder of victim Kalpana, legally wedded wife of accused No. 2. As said above, the learned Judge, after recording evidence and holding full fledged trial, came to conclusion that the prosecution could not prove case of murder and abetment to suicide, but held that the prosecution could prove that the accused subjected the victim with cruelty with common intention and thereby committed offence punishable u/s 498A read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Let us now give gist of evidence that has come on record. The prosecution placed reliance on as many as 17 witnesses. The deposition of prosecution witness No. 1 Tathagat, who is brother of the victim, discloses that victim Kalpana was married to accused Vasant and had three children. Victim was staying with accused No. 2 Vasant and her children at Hudco Colony, Ahmednagar. Since he was taking education at Ahmednagar, he was visiting Kalpana frequently. Kalpana told him that her husband Vasant had illicit relation with accused No. 1 Sindhubai. She told him further that both accused harassed her. He informed this fact to his father Dadasaheb. Immediately after Diwali of 1997, he went with Kalpana to her house. Kalpana found a tiffin box in her house which bore name of accused No. 1 Sindhubai. She asked accused No. 2 Vasant about the tiffin and there occurred quarrel between the couple. When he intervened in the quarrel, accused No. 2 Vasant threatened him. Accused No. 2 Vasant then took away Kalpana in a separate room of the house and assaulted her throughout the night. He said, in the morning he saw marks of violence on Kalpana''s person. He informed this fact to his father. On 15th January, 1992, he was at his native place Rahuri. His brother-in-law Pramod came to Rahuri and informed him that Kalpana sustained burns and was admitted to a hospital at Ahmednagar. He and his parents rushed to the hospital. Kalpana was able to speak to them. Kalpana told him that Sindhubai and Vasant poured kerosene on her person and set her on fire. However, in the cross-examination, it was brought on record that this witness stated to police on 16th January, 1992, that Kalpana told him that she herself poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire.
PW 10 is Sayyogita, the daughter of the victim. When her statement was recorded in the Court, she was 18 years old. She stated that the incident occurred when she was in 5th standard. She said, the incident took place on 15th January, 1992, in the morning. At that time, her brother Sandesh was in their house for enjoying Diwali vacation. Accused No. 1 Sindhubai used to come to their house quite frequently. Her mother told her that Sindhubai had married her father Vasant secretly. On 14th night, she, her mother and her younger brother Sarvajit slept after taking meals. Thereafter, her father came home at about 10 to 11 p.m. Accused No. 1 Sindhubai also came to their house. Accused then started quarreling with her mother. Sindhubai incited her father to assault her mother and to discontinue relations with her. Her father then started beating her mother. Thereafter, her father Vasant and Sindhubai went to sleep in front side room, whereas she, her mother and Sarvajit slept in middle room. On the next day, her mother woke up at 03.45 a.m. Her mother then took kerosene stove and kerosene Can and went to backyard of the house. In the backyard of the house, bath, toilet and water tank were situated. She and her brother Sarvajit woke up at that time and were watching their mother. Accused Sindhubai and Vasant then went to the backyard. Accused Sindhubai then poured kerosene from the kerosene Can on her person and accused Vasant used burning candle to set her on fire. Her mother got surrounded by flames. Accused Sindhubai left the house hurriedly from front door. Accused Vasant closed the front door from inside. In the mean time her mother jumped into water tank in the backyard and also started screaming. The neighbours came to the rear door of the house and started raising alarm. They wanted to enter the house from back door. Accordingly, Sarvajit opened the door and allowed them to come inside. In the meantime, accused Vasant brought auto-rikshaw and took her mother to hospital. This witness was recalled by the prosecution and subsequently he added that she had written a letter to her maternal grand-father about ill-treatment meted out to her mother. She identified her letter, which is admitted on record. In the cross-examination, it was pointed out to this witness that in her statement before police, she did not state that accused No. 1 Sindhubai poured kerosene on her person and accused No. 2 Vasant threw burning candle and then Sindhubai rushed out of her house.
P.W. 11 was Sarvajit, younger brother of witness Sayyogita, who repeated in his deposition as to how incident occurred. He squarely blamed accused for perpetrating the crime. In the cross-examination, however, he admitted that his statement was recorded for the first time by the police on 28th June, 1998. This means that immediately after the incident during the investigation the police had not recorded statement of this witness.
P.W. 13 was Dadasaheb, father of victim Kalpana. He stated that during Diwali of 1991, his daughter Kalpana had come to his house for usual visit. She told him that her husband Vasant had developed illicit relations with Sindhubai and that her husband had threatened her that he would kill her if she disclosed his illicit relations to anyone. He said, immediately after Diwali, he went to the house of accused Vasant. He said, the purpose of his visit was to take Kalpana back to his house, but accused Vasant refused to send Kalpana with him. Accused Vasant took Kalpana in backside room of the house. When Kalpana came back, she refused to go with him. Accused Vasant told him that he would not stop illicit relations. In December, 1991, he received letter from his grand-daughter Sayyogita informing about plight of Kalpana etc. On 15th January, 1992, he learnt about the incident and went to Ahmednagar. He went to the hospital at Ahmednagar and saw his daughter Kalpana in injured condition. At 03.30 p.m. he went to Tofkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar and submitted a report and requested police to investigate the case. But, in the evening, he learnt that Police Officer and Executive Magistrate recorded statements of Kalpana, on the basis of which they registered the offence. On 20th January, 1992, he made complaint.
P.W. 6, 7 and 8 are neighbours of the victim, who had rushed to the house of the victim at the time of incident. They did not support the prosecution case entirely, but the gist of their deposition is as under.
They stated that they woke up on 15th January, 1992, early in the morning, because of thumping noise coming from the house of the victim. They all went to the rear side of the house. They knocked rear side door of house of the victim. Victim''s son Balu opened the door for them. They entered in the backyard of the house and saw victim Kalpana in water reservoir. They also found accused Vasant and his two children. Accused was holding a torch in his hand. They also said that they all then took out Kalpana from the water reservoir. Kalpana was injured by burns. They took her in the bed room, changed her clothes and thereafter shifted Kalpana to a private hospital.
P.W. 15 is Assistant Police Inspector. He said, in January, 1992, he was attached to Tofkhana Police Station. On 15th January, 1992, at about 05.00 p.m., he learnt about Kalpana taking treatment and also learnt that no police had by then gone to the hospital for recording statement. He then sent a request letter to Special Executive Magistrate Shri Kulthe requesting him to record dying declaration. He himself went to the hospital. He requested the Doctor who certified about orientation of the victim. The doctor certified that Kalpana was fit to give statement. Thereafter, Executive Magistrate Shri Kulthe recorded Kalpana''s statement. After he recorded her statement, this witness also recorded similar statement after obtaining doctor''s permission and certified that Kalpna was in a position to record her statement. He recorded Kalpana''s statement as per her narration and obtained her thumb impression. He then went to the tofkhana Police Station where he saw P.I. Shri Suryawanshi. As per his instruction, he registered offence on the basis of dying declaration. The direction to register offence was given to him in writing by Police Inspector Shri Suryawanshi. So, the offence was registered at C.R. No. 14 of 1992. The case was then handed over to Police Inspector Shri Suryawanshi for investigation.
P.W. 4 is Ashok Kulthe, the Executive Magistrate. He said that on 15th January, 1992, at 05.00 p.m., police requested him to record Kalpana''s dying declaration. He went to the hospital and after verifying condition of the patient from the attending doctor, he recorded her statement. In the statements recorded by P.W. 4 and 15, victim Kalpana narrated the incident as under.
During the night between 14th and 15th while she was in her house, accused Nos. 1 and 2 came there. During the night, they had quarrel with her. Accused Vasant asked her to accept the fact that he had married accused Sindhubai. He even assaulted her. Early in the morning, there occurred one more altercation between them. At that time, accused Sindhubai told her that she was unable to control her husband and that it is better that she should commit suicide. Because of this provocation, she poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. But, before she could pour kerosene on her person, accused Sindhubai also poured some kerosene on her person.
P.W. 5 Ramakant Muley is a Tahsildar. On 20th September, 1992, he said, he received a request from Police Station for recording dying declaration of Kalpana. He said that he enquired with the police as to why dying declaration for the second time was required. The police insisted that he should record such statement, and therefore, on 22nd January, 1992, at about 05.00 p.m., he went to the hospital and recorded Kalpana''s statement. This time, Kalpana narrated the incident differently. She said that while she was filling the kerosene stove with kerosene, accused Sindhubai came from behind and poured kerosene on her person and her husband Vasant set her on fire with candle etc.
Having gone through the entire evidence of the prosecution, and having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, following questions arise for our consideration:-
[1] Whether the prosecution could prove that the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in furtherance of their common intention subjected Kalpana to cruelty as defined u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code?
[2] Whether the prosecution could prove that accused Sindhubai and accused Vasant in furtherance of common intention set Kalpana on fire ?
[3] Whether the prosecution could prove that accused in furtherance of their common intention abetted Kalpana''s suicide?
REASONS
Point no. 2:-
This point should be discussed first. Our answer to this question is in negative. Even the learned Judge of the lower Court who had an occasion to see the witnesses recording their depositions did not believe this part of the prosecution case. The prosecution case is squarely affected because of variance in dying declarations. There are two dying declarations recorded on 15th January, 1992, immediately after the incident, and the third dying declaration is recorded on 22nd January, 1992. The first two dying declarations are almost similar to each other, in which the victim did not allege that the accused set her on fire. The statements at the most suggested that accused No. 1 Sindhubai during heated arguments coaxed victim Kalpana that she should commit suicide. In order to facilitate such act of suicide, accused Sindhubai even poured some kerosene on her person. Due to this effort on the part of Sindhubai, apparently victim Kalpana got excited and at that moment impulsively poured kerosene on her person and set herself on fire. She thus squarely indicated that she sustained burns because she herself set her on fire. The injuries she sustained thus were self inflicted. She admitted that she attempted to commit suicide. The prosecution case that was developed afterwards, appears to be untrue.
There were eye witnesses to the incident who were P.W. 10 and P.W. 11. P.W. 10 Sayyogita admitted that she had not stated to the police when her statement was recorded immediately after the incident that accused Sindhubai poured kerosene and it was accused Vasant who set her mother on fire. Whatever stated before the Court was a gross exaggeration. P.W. 11 deserves to be completely disbelieved because at the time of incident he was only 10 years old and his statement was not recorded by the police. His statement was recorded after six years, and therefore, whatever he stated to the Court was a disclosure made almost for the first time. Obviously he would support the case of his sister. Both these witnesses thus are not believable on this count. What exactly had happened on that day is not disclosed by them. They are tutored witnesses and they tried to tell the Court what they were asked to say. Had these witnesses stated the truth, the prosecution could have succeeded at-least to some extent. This, according to us, was not a case of murder at all. Offence of murder thus is not proved.
Point no. 1:-
The relationship between Kalpana and her husband Vasant got soured because of Sindhubai''s entry in accused No. 2 Vasant''s life. The evidence clearly indicated and established that accused No. 1 Sindhubai frequently visited the house of accused No. 2 Vasant and his wife Kalpana, the victim. On the face of it, amorous relationship between accused was quite open and known to people. This must have caused considerable distress to victim Kalpana who was obviously opposed to the relationship. The evidence also indicated that accused No. 2 Vasant was pressurizing Kalpana for accepting meekly his relationship with accused No. 1 Sindhubai. The evidence also indicates that victim Kalpana was not accepting such suggestions and that she was vehemently opposing the affair. On this count, the evidence suggested that accused No. 2 Vasant subjected Kalpana to cruelty. The depositions of Kalpana''s children on this point is quite believable. They narrated the incident that took place during the night between 14th and 15th January, 1992. They narrated as to what happened between their parents during that night. Obviously, the children will go to sleep. But, they stated very categorically as to what happened between their parents prior to they slept. They stated categorically that accused No. 2 Vasant assaulted victim Kalpana. They also stated that they and Kalpana slept in the middle portion of the house and the accused occupied the front side room. The fact that her husband slept with another woman in another room of her own house, was quite unbearable to a married woman. Kalpana endured this unpleasant truth of her life. Sleeping with another woman in another room of one''s house, leaving wife alone, amounted to cruelty. We have no doubt that during that night accused no. 1 Sindhubai came to the house of victim Kalpana. She had quarrel with her and that she slept in the house for the night.
The defence tried to deny presence of accused No. 1 Sindhubai in the house of Kalpana, the victim. But the evidence on record clearly establishes the fact that Sindhubai slept in the same house during that night. Now the question is, whether the accused in furtherance of their common object subjected victim to cruelty as defined u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code reads as under:-
498A. Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation-For the purpose of this section, "cruelty" means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.
Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code is restricted to cruelty by a husband and his relatives. It is thus not applicable to a husband''s friend. So, though accused No. 1 Sindhubai could be said to be party to the cruel treatment meted out to the victim by her husband, she cannot be charged u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code and cannot be convicted also. She is certainly outside the purview of Section 498A of the Indian Penal code. There is no allegation against accused No. 1 Sindhubai that she caused hurt to victim Kalpana, and so, she cannot be convicted for a lesser offence such as offence punishable u/s 323, 324 of the Indian Penal code. But the conduct of accused No. 2 Vasant would certainly fall within the ambit of clause [a] of the explanation.
It is established that accused No. 2 Vasant by his willful conduct subjected Kalpana to cruelty and thereby certainly drove victim Kalpana to commit suicide. He is therefore found guilty for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge of the trial Court convicted him for this offence and is also sentenced him. We are not inclined to disturb the finding as well as the quantum of sentence awarded to him. But, as said above, we are inclined to acquit accused No. 1 Sindhubai from the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
Point No. 3:-
In our view, the last point is probably the most important point in this case. We have analyze the evidence above. We believed the first part of the prosecution case viz. accused No. 2 Vasant had extra marital affair with accused No. 1 Sindhubai. This was known to most of the people including the victim. Accused No. 1 visited accused No. 2 at his house while the other family members, such as; children of accused No. 2 Vasant and his wife, were still in the house. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 slept in the house where the incident took place during the night between 14th and 15th January, 1992. What happened in the morning is required to be analyzed from the evidence which came on record. We are not inclined to believe depositions of prosecution witness Nos. 10 and 11, the children of the victim on this point.
P.W. 10 Sayyogita, the daughter of the victim Kalpana, was certainly present in the house during that night and she was able to see as to what happened between her parents and accused No. 1 Sindhubai. But, this witness exaggerated and improved her previous statement. She asserted that she saw accused No. 1 Sindhubai pouring kerosene on the person of the deceased Kalpana and her father setting fire with the help of burning candle. This part of the evidence is an improvement. She had not stated this to the police when her statement was recorded on the very next day of the incident. This part of her evidence is tutored one, and therefore, deserves to be rejected.
The deposition of P.W. 11 is absolutely worthless. At the time of incident he was rather too young and the Investigating Officer did not feel it necessary to record his statement during investigation. His statement was recorded subsequently in 1998, six years after the incident, and he was asked to record his deposition at the time of trial. Whatever he stated is a tutored deposition and we reject it.
In absence of these two depositions, there is only one source of information in respect of the incident that took place in the morning, the victim''s dying declarations. We discussed above the evidence and it is found that there are two sets of dying declarations. The dying declarations which are recorded immediately after the incident indicated that the victim admitted that this was a case of suicide. She stated very clearly in such statements that after the quarrel which took place inside the house, she went outside in the backyard. She then stated that accused No. 1 Sindhubai poured some amount of kerosene on her person and incited her for committing suicide. Due to such overt act on the part of accused No. 1 Sindhubai, she took further action of pouring more kerosene on her person and actually setting herself on fire. We are inclined to accept this part of the prosecution case. This dying declaration is trustworthy because it was recorded by independent person and that it is inculpatory. The victim blamed herself for attempting to commit suicide. She blamed accused No. 1 Sindhubai only for quarreling with her and pouring some amount of kerosene on her person and saying that she should commit suicide. We are inclined to believe this part of the evidence.
The question therefore is, whether the act attributed to accused No. 1 Sindhubai amounted to abetment to suicide. The answer to this in our view is in affirmative. Abetment to suicide is defined u/s 107, 108 read with Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. These Sections read as under:-
"Section 107. Abetment of a thing.
A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1-A person who by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. Section 108. Abettor.
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Explanation 1-The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.
Explanation 2-To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.
Illustrations
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Explanation 3-It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge.
Illustrations
(a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.
(b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z''s death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z''s death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence. A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.
(c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A''s instigation B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment, provided for that offence.
(d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z''s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z''s possession, in good faith, believing it to be A''s property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft.
Explanation 4-The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also as offence.
Illustration
A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z B accordingly instigates C to murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B''s instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to the same punishment.
Explanation 5-It. is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration
A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A''s name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.
Section 306. Abetment of suicide
If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
The situation between victim on one side and accused on the other was quite volatile. The quarrel was going on since night. Even in the morning it continued. Quite obviously victim Kalpana was angry because in her presence her husband took another woman to his bed. If a quarrel took place in such situation, accused No. 1 Sindhubai was equally responsible for atrocious treatment meted out to the victim Kalpana. She in-fact had common intention with accused No. 2 Vasant to subject his wife with conduct due to which Kalpana should have no option but to commit suicide. She could have easily avoided coming to his house and having conversation with his wife. She not only did both these things, but stayed put in the house. Accused No. 1 slept with Kalpan''s husband [accused No. 2 Vasant] in the same house. She could have easily avoided this atrocious incident. She could have gone to her home in the night and stayed at her own house. When the quarrel reached to its climax, accused No. 1 Sindhubai had a courage to even put some amount of kerosene on victim''s person and saying that she should die. This physical act on the part of accused No. 1 Sindhubai, in our view would amount to instigation to victim Kalpana to commit suicide. This also amounts to intentionally aiding the commission of suicide. When the quarrel reached to the highest pitch, accused No. 1 Sindhubai could have left the scene and could have retreated to her house. When in her presence the victim had threatened that she would commit suicide, it was necessary for her to physically restrain her from taking any steps towards committing suicide. In view of all this, we are inclined to hold that accused no. 1 Sindhubai has committed offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
The next question is, whether accused no. 2 Vasant had committed offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code, either independently or sharing common intention with accused No. 1 Sindhubai. As said above, the incident that occurred in the morning was between victim Kalpana and accused No. 1 Sindhubai. We have already held above that accused No. 2 Vasant is guilty of offence u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code in as much as he subjected victim Kalpana to cruelty and his conduct was such that it drove Kalpana, the victim, to commit suicide ultimately. We are firmly of the opinion that accused No. 2 is also guilty of offence punishable u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code. We have already mentioned reasons as to why we are holding accused No. 1 Sindhubai guilty of such offence. We discussed the evidence about the events that took place in the morning. While the events were taking place between accused No. 1 Sindhubai and victim Kalpana on one hand, accused No. 2 Vasant was also present in the house. He had already provided extreme provocation to his wife by allowing another woman to come and stay with him in the same house. He could have easily avoided such situation. He could have asked accused No. 1 Sindhubai to go back to her home and stay there. However, he encouraged her to stay there in his house. In the morning, he could have prevented the quarrel that took place between accused No. 1 Sindhubai and his wife-victim Kalpana. He could have physically intervened in such quarrel and could have prevented victim Kalpana from taking any untoward step, such as pouring kerosene on her person etc. Even when accused No. 1 poured kerosene on his wife and asked her to commit suicide, he kept quiet. By such conduct discussed above, he abetted the suicide by commission as well as omission. Judgment and reasoning of Trial Court in this regard is not maintainable at all.
We have considered say of accused when trial court sentenced them. We have heard Counsel for both the sides in appeal. We also heard submission on sentence from both sides. We take note of the time lapse to consider quantum of sentence.
Hence, the following order.
ORDER
1] Criminal Appeal Nos. 257 of 2000 and 145 of 2000 are partly allowed.
2] Criminal Appeal No. 158 of 2000 stands dismissed.
3] Conviction of accused No. 2 Vasant s/o Arjun Pawar for the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code is confirmed along with sentence awarded to him.
4] Accused No. 1 Sindhubai Kalawati Kachare is acquitted of the offence punishable u/s 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
5] Accused No. 1 Sindhubai Kalawati Kachare and accused No. 2 Vasant s/o Arjun Pawar are convicted for the offence punishable u/s 306 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. They are sentenced to suffer R.I. for three years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine amount, they shall further suffer R.I. for one month.
6] Accused No. 1 Sindhubai Kalawati Kachare and accused No. 2 Vasant s/o Arjun Pawar shall surrender to their bail bond for undergoing remaining sentence.