S.L. Jain, J.
1. Appellant/State has filed this appeal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 25-6-1992 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur in Sessions Trial No. 41/90 acquitting the respondents of offences punishable under Section 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, was that respondent No. 1 Ravindra married to deceased Smt. Meerabai about 13 years before the date of incident. Respondent No. 2 Ramdas is the brother of respondent No. 1 Ravindra and respondent No. 3 Shobhahai is the wife of Ramdas, respondent No. 2. Thus, they are the relatives of the husband of deceased Meerabai. The respondents used to harass Smt. Meerabai with a view to coercing her to meet unlawful demand for money. Due to the harassment meted by the accused persons to deceased Meerabai on 27-12-1989, she along with her son Sandeep and daughter Vaishali Jumped into the well, situated in the field of respondents. Three dead bodies were seen by Chowkidar Rajaram, who reported the matter to Police Station Lalbhagh, Burhanpur. After inquiry, the dead bodies, were sent for Post Mortem Examination.
3. After investigation a challan for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code was filed against the respondents before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Burhanpur, wherefrom the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge.
4. The Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur framed a charge for the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code against the respondents. The respondents abjured the guilt. They pleaded that they never demanded any money or any other thing from Meerabai. They further pleaded that they never harassed or coerced Smt. Meerabai.
5. The prosecution examined in all 16 witnesses to prove its case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Burhanpur did not find the respondents guilty and acquitted them of offences under Section 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code. The State, in this appeal, has challenged acquittal of the respondents.
6. I have carefully examined the material evidence on record with the aid of the learned counsel for both the sides and have also considered the arguments advanced by them.
7. The learned Panel Lawyer strongly contended that there was definite evidence to show that Meerabai was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondents in connection with the demand for dowry. As against this, learned counsel for respondents, Shri Thakre, submitted that the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in acquitting the respondents on the basis of the evidence brought on record.
8. I have give my anxious consideration to the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties. Leelabai (P.W. 4), who is the sister-in-law of deceased Meerabai, has stated that whenever Meerabai used to visit her parental home, she used to tell her parents that the respondents harass her to meet unlawful demand for money. Once Meerabai told her parents that the respondents are demanding Rs. 5,000/- to purchase a buffalo. As they had no money, they sent their own buffalo to respondents. According to this witness the buffalo was sent two months prior to the date of occurrence. About a month before the date of occurrence Meerabai informed her parents that respondents are demanding Rs. 10,000/- for agricultural operations. When respondent No. 1, Ravindra visited the parents of Meerabai to take Meerabai back to her marital home, the brothers of Meerabai told him that presently they do not have money and when arrangements will be made the same will be given to him. Such an empty assurance did not satisfy the respondents and they continued to harass her. Unbearable harassment prompted Meera Bai to commit suicide along with her children.
9. Sadashiv (P.W. 12), who is the brother of deceased Meerabai, Prabhakar (P.W. 13) who is cousin of Meerabai and Kashiram (P.W. 14), who is admittedly a friend of Sadashiv (P.W. 12 ) have also corroborated Leelabai (P.W. 4), but this version of the witnesses is apparently an after thought. On the date of incident itself, these witnesses reached village Lonee and they were present when inquest Panchanamas of the dead bodies of Meerabai, Vaishali and Sandeep were prepared. These three Panchanamas bear the signature of Sadashiv (P.W. 12 ) . At Panchanamas bear the signature of Sadashiv (P.W. 12). At the time of preparation of these Panchanamas, Sadashiv (P.W. 12) opined that the death occurred due to drowing. Had the story of harassing, Meerabai with a view to coerce her to meet an unlawful demand for money or other articles been true, the natural conduct of Sadashiv (P.W. 12) would have been to inform the same to the Investigating Officer, while preparing inquest Panchanamas. At the occasion other witnesses namely Leelabai, Kashiram and Prabhakar were also present but they did not speak anything to the Investigation Officer regarding harassment or any ill treatment meted out to the deceased. K.N. Pathak (P.W. 16), T.I. who prepared inquest Panchayama, admits that the dead body of Meerabai was received by Sadashiv (P.W. 12) on 29-12-1989 but he did not record statement of Sadashiv (P.W. 12) as he was busy. This explanation is a tablet which cannot be swallowed. It is thus clear that Leelabai (P.W. 4), Sadashiv (P.W. 12), Prabhakar (P.W. 13) and Kashiram (P.W. 14) did not speak anything about the harassment or coercion to the police officers on the date of occurrence or at the time of receiving the dead bodies and, therefore, their version is a subsequent development and an after-thought.
10. Had there been any harassment or ill-treatment, it would have certainly come to the knowledge of the persons of the locality and neighbourhood but the prosecution has not examined any witness from the neighbourhood. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish the harassment or coercion.
11. During Post Mortem Examination,no injury was found on the dead body ofdeceased Smt. Meerabai, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused persons hadassaulted the deceased which promoted herto commit suicide.
12. Sadashiv (P.W. 12) has also stated that Meerabai when visited her parents showed the injuries sustained by her in the hands of respondents and she was treated by the doctor of his village. But no doctor has been produced in evidence to prove the injury. Had the story of harassment and causing injuries to Meerabai been true the conduct of the relations of Meerabai would have been to report the police regarding the same or at least to tell the relations and co-villagers regarding the same. But it is admitted by the witnesses that they did not inform to any of their relations regarding the harassment. It is unnatural that the respondents went on harassing the deceased Meerabai for a period of ten years. Yet the matter was not reported to the police.
13. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has highlighted the material contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Even otherwise, the evidence adduced by the prosecution as to demand of dowry is too general and weak. There is no definite evidence to show that Meerabai was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with any demand for dowry. The well in which the dead bodies of Meerabai and her two children were found had no parapet wall. There was a jujube tree near the Well. The possibility cannot be ruled out that the children might have gone towards the tree to collect the fruits or might have been playing there and accidentally fell into the well as there was no parapet wall and in order to save the children, affectionate mother also might have jumped in the Well and consequently, all of them died due to drowing. The prosecution has not established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased Meerabai committed suicide and the respondents abetted the commission of suicide.
14. Before recording conviction under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code the Court must be satisfied that the accused persons by their conduct created such an inhumane situation or subjected the deceased to such cruelty which amounted to abetment and led to the death as a suicide. The marriage of Meera Bai took place about 13 years prior to the incident, therefore, presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn.
15. The learned trial Court properly and objectively considered the evidence to reach a conclusion that the respondents were not guilty of the offences charged. The crucial and necessary ingredients that Meerabai was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the respondents was not established. Under these circumstances the impugned judgment is unassailable. It does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
16. In my opinion, there is no cogent reason for reversing the order of acquittal. The evaluation made by the trial Court of the evidence of material witnesses does not suffer from any illegality, manifest error or perversity. It is well settled that if two views of the evidence are reasonable possible, one supporting the acquittal and the other indicating conviction, the High Court should not, in such a situation, reverse the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court carefully wrote the judgment, exhaustively considered the evidence and on an analysis reached to the conclusions which in my opinion, are pre-eminately reasonable and support the order of acquittal. While considering an appeal against acquittal the High Court must give proper weight and consideration to the view of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses. The presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the right of the accused to the benefit of doubt and the slowness of the appellate Court in distributing a finding arrived at by the Judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses should also be kept in view. In Ganesh Bhawan Patel v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 135 : (1979 Cri LJ 51), the Supreme Court observed thus (para 13) :--
'Whether two reasonable conclusions can be drawn on the evidence on record, the High Court should be as a matter of judicial caution refrain from interfering with the order of acquittal recorded by the trial Court. In other words, if the main grounds on which the Court below has passed its order acquitting the accused are reasonable and plausible and cannot be entirely and effectively dislodged or demolished, the High Court should not disturb the acquittal.'
17. The approach to be adopted by the High Court when exercising its appellate power in appeal against acquittal, has been defined in a long line of cases, some of them are Ajit Singh Thakur Singh v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1981 SC 733 : (1981 Cri LJ 293), Tara Singh v. State of M.P., AIR 1981 SC 950 : (1981 Cri LJ 483), Banwari Ram v. State of U.P., AIR 1998 SC 674 : (1998 Cri LJ 869) and Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana, AIR 1995, SC 280 : (1994 Cri LJ 3836).'
18. I am satisfied that the learned trial Judge did not commit any error in acquitting the accused/respondents of the offences punishable under Sections 306 and 498A of Indian Penal Code. The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly. The judgment and order of the trial Court is maintained.