Sanjay Uttam Suryavanshi v. The State of Maharashtra

15. He further observed that the injury Nos. 1 to 7 were antemortem. Further, he found following internal injuries, as her pleura was congested. On dissection of Injury No. 1 mentioned in Column No. 17 found subcutaneous hematoma present over area around thyroid cartillage. There was fracture of thyroid cartillage. Larynx, trachea and bronchi were congested with submucosa bleeding. Both the lungs were congested. He found that the stomach of deceased was empty and congested. He has mentioned the features of her face in Column No. 13 which are as under: i) Her face was contracted. ii) Her eyes were closed and subconjunctival bleeding. iii) Her tongue was clenched in between upper and lower jaws. iv) No frothy secretions from mouth or nose.

16. After post-mortem examination he opined that cause of death of Manisha was asphyxia due to throttling. Accordingly, he prepared Post-Mortem Report (Exh.68). He further deposes that he has taken sample of viscera and sent for analysis. He received report of Chemical analysis (Exh. 71 and Exh. 72). No poison was detected inside. On going through the injuries found on the person of Manisha, he opined that her death was homicidal death.

17. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Appellant submits that the Medical Ofcer has not noted the alleged injuries on the tongue of Manisha. It is true that Medical Ofcer simply stated that he found tongue of Manisha was cleanched in between upper and lower jaws. So there could have been injury on the tongue but it was not mentioned by the Medical Ofcer, but the position of tongue is observed by the Medical Ofcer. He has rightly observed that tongue was clenched in between upper and lower jaws. So it is one of the symptom, if there is an unnatural death. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submits that, in case of throttling or strangulation the eyes remain open but in the present case her eyes were closed. It is submitted that there is doubt whether it was case of throttling or strangulation. Merely eyes of Manisha were closed, it does not mean that her death was accidental. The injuries found on the person of Manisha are also required to be considered. Medical Ofcer has categorically denied that the injury sustained to Manisha could be possible by fall into well and it is also denied that injury Nos. 1 and 2 could be possible by coming in contact with hard substance in the well. So the Medical Ofcer has ruled out the theory of accidental or suicidal death of Manisha. Nothing worth has come on record to disbelieve the evidence of Medical Ofcer.

18. Learned APP Ms. M. M. Deshmukh appearing for the State submits that the medical evidence is required to be accepted if nothing worth has brought in the cross-examination of M.O. She relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Mafabhai Nagarbhai Raval Vs. State of Gujarat {(1992) 4, SCC 69} wherein the Apex Court has relied on the report as under: “ it is needless to say the the doctor who has examined the deceased and conducted the post-mortem is the only competent witness to speak about the nature of injuries and the cause of death. Unless there is something inherently defective the Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the doctor.”

19. In the present case it has come in the evidence of the prosecution of the witnesses that the dead body was floating in the well and it was removed from the well. There was swellings on the neck of the deceased Manisha. Inquest panchanama which is admitted by the accused also, wherein, there is a reference about the swellings on the neck of the deceased Manisha. It was prepared immediately after the dead-body was removed from the well. Thus, taking into consideration the entire evidence brought on record and couple with the opinion of Medical Ofcer the prosecution has proved that the death of Manisha is homicidal.

20. Once it is established that death of Manisha was homicidal then it is to be seen who is responsible for the death. The Appellant and his family members have not explained the circumstances in which the death of deceased Manisha has caused. In fact, it is admitted fact that Manisha was residing with the Appellant and his family members. It is established on record that in the night of 10th December 2008, the Informant was called by Original Accused No. 4 and the Informant was asked to visit the Appellant’s house immediately but he showed his inability to reach the Appellant’s house. He assured that he would reach the Appellant’s house in the next day morning. The Informant had also occasion to speak to Manisha in the said night. Manisha was insisting the Informant to take her back, but the Informant assured her that he would come on the next day morning for taking her to her parental house. Accordingly, the Informant went to the Appellant’s house in the morning of 11th December 2008 at about 7.00 a.m. but Manisha was missing. The Appellant and his family members did not give any explanation regarding missing of Manisha and his daugther, till the dead body was recovered from the well. No doubt that the Appellant had lodged missing report (Exh-89) on 11th December 2008, wherein, he mentioned that Manisha along with her daughter left the house without giving any information. It is also mentioned in the report that he took search in nearby vicinity, but she could not be found. There is no whisper in the report regarding the cause of missing of Manisha. --21. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submits that the strong suspicion against the Appellant, cannot take place of proof. He also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Mulak Raj V/s. State of Haryana {1996 CRI. L. J. 1358} wherein it was held that the deceased died a homicidal death two months after her marriage. Wherein it was held that the fact of deceased died a homicidal death in household of accused and her dead body was found in kitchen burns, would not by itself connect all accused or any one of them with crime. No satisfactory evidence to show whether it was her father-inlaw or other accused or whether all of them jointly had taken part in killing her by sufocating her, strong suspicion cannot take place of proof. All accused would be entitled to beneft of doubt.

22. In the present case, the prosecution has established that the Appellant was demanding money from Manisha and the Informant. The Informant had partly fulflled demand of the Appellant by paying Rs. 30,000/- but still the Appellant was demanding money from Manisha. It is established on record that Manisha was ill-treated by the Appellant for non-fulfllment of demand of money. The Appellant did not give any explanation as to how Manisha sustained injuries. It is also not explained by the Appellant that how the dead body of Manisha and her daughter was found in the well near his feld.

23. On the basis of the above material, the learned APP submits that the Appellant and Manisha was last seen together. It was incumbent upon the Appellant to ofer explanation as to the injuries received by Manisha. She submits that, no explanation has been given by the Appellant or his family members. So non-ofering of explanation is strong circumstance which indicates that the Appellant has committed crime. To substantiate her point, she relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan V/s. State of Maharashtra {(2006) 10 SCC 681} wherein it was held that as under; “The demand of dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in the last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the Courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difcult for the prosecution to lead evidence. If an ofence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the ofence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it would be extremely difcult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the Courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difcult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision. Where an ofence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and ofering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to ofer any explanation. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eyewitness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either ofers no explanation or ofers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the ofence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not ofer any explanation how the wife received injuries or ofers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.”

24. In the present case the Appellant and his family members had opportunity to explain the circumstances in which Manisha was missing from the house, but no explanation was given by the Appellant, who is husband of Manisha. It is proved on record that Manisha had sustained fracture of thyroid cartillage which could be happened only by throttling or strangulation.

25. On the other hand learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the chain of circumstances, therefore, ofence is not proved beyond doubt. To substantiate his point, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Sunita V/s. State of Haryana (AIR 2019 SC 3571: AIR Online 2019 SC 720) in the said case, dead body of deceased found burning in ‘bitora’ (conical storage of cow dung cakes) in village of accused. Since ‘bitora’ was not in possession of accused and was in open place, fndings of High Court that accused required to explain presence of body parts of deceased in burning ‘Bitora’, erroneous. The fact of the case cited (supra) are not identical with the fact of the present case. In the present case, the Appellant and deceased Manisha were residing together. The prosecution has established that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death for non-fulfllment of demand of money. It is also established that her death was homicidal death. So the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the Appellant.

26. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the ratio laid down in the case of P. Mani V/s. State of Tamil Nadu {AIR 2006 SC 1319} wherein husband and wife were last seen together inside a room. Thereafter, children opened the door and they saw smoke coming out from the room. On the basis of the said fact, it was held that where accused and deceased were not last seen together in the room. The explanation under Section 106 cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. But in the present case the Appellant and deceased Manisha were residing together and they were last seen together.

27. Learned Counsel for the Appellant also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Tomaso Bruno & Anr V/s. State of Uttar Pradesh {(2015) 7 SCC 178} wherein, read as under: “There is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on the circumstantial evidence. But it should be tested on the touchstone of the law relating to circumstantial evidence. The Court in C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. V/s. State of A.P, (1996) 10 SCC 193, para (21) held as under:- 21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In the present case the Courts below have overlooked these settled principles and allowed suspicion to take the place of proof besides relying upon some inadmissible evidence.” The above ratio is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the prosecution has established the homicidal death of Manisha.

28. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that he was not present at the time of alleged incident. The Appellant has taken defense of Alibi, but no evidence is laid by the Appellant to prove the defense of alibi. The Investigating Ofcer made inquiry with the employer of the Appellant. In pursuance of that the employer had given a letter (Exh- 90), wherein it is mentioned that the Appellant was on duty from the evening of 10th December 2008 till 5.00 a.m on 11th December 2008. The employer is not examined by the Appellant. Even if the said letter is read as it is, it is not helpful to the Appellant to prove his defense of alibi. Admittedly, the Appellant had lodged missing report of deceased Manisha with police (Exh-89) at 6.30 p.m. on 11th December 2008. It is mentioned in the said missing report that he returned home at about 5.30 p.m. from his Company and thereafter he along with his brother, mother and 5 - 6 labours went to feld in Auto-rickshaw for sowing onion crop. It is also mentioned that deceased Manisha remained in the house and thereafter she left the house and since then she was missing. It means, the deceased Manisha was very much alive till the arrival of the Appellant in the house till the morning of 11th December 2008.

29. The prosecution has relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Soma Bhai V/s. State of Gujarat {1975 SCC (Cri) 515} wherein, it was held that the defense of alibi must have proved to the satisfaction of the Court. The prosecution has also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of State of Haryana V/s. Sher Singh & Others {AIR 1981 SCC 1021(1)} wherein, it was held that the burden to prove of alibi is on accused and prosecution was not bound to prove the motive. The prosecution also relied on the ratio laid down in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Narsingrao Gangaram Pimple {AIR 1984 SCC 63} wherein, it was held that the plea of alibi must be proved with absolute certainty so as to completely exclude the possibility of the presence of the person concerned at the place on occurrence.

30. In the present case the Appellant has simply relied on the letter issued by Multiplast Company (Exh-90). Nobody is examined to prove the said letter. Even the said letter is read as it is, it is simply established that the duty of the Appellant was over at 5.00 a.m. on 11th December 2008, thereafter, he returned to his house and went to the feld for sowing onion crop. When he returned back, his wife was present in the house. So plea of alibi appears to be after thought, it is not proved. So it cannot be said that at the time of alleged incident the Appellant was not present in the house.

31. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the dead body of the Manisha was found in the morning of 13th December 2008. FIR was lodged in the night of 13th December 2008 at 22.30 hours. It is also submitted that the deceased Manisha was missing from the house since morning of 11th December 2008. The informant had come to the house of the Appellant for making inquiry about the alleged incident, he took search of Manisha and returned to his house. December 2008 the dead body of Manisha was found in the well. It was sent to post-mortem. It appears that in the post-mortem report it was revealed that the death of Manisha caused due to throttling of neck. It appears that the said report was available after the funeral, thereafter the Informant lodged report with police. The chain of events are taken into account, then it can be said that there is no deliberately delay on the part of the Informant. The Informant rustic person. When he came to know about the homicidal death of Manisha, he lodged FIR. Therefore, it cannot said that there is a delay in lodging FIR which is fatal to the prosecution case.

32. It has also proved that, soon before the death, Manisha has subjected to cruelty for non-fulfllment of demand of money by the Appellant. The Appellant and Manisha were last seen together. No explanation was given by the Appellant for injuries found on the body of Manisha and her homicidal death. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to the death of Manisha and involvement of the Appellant in the crime.

33. It is submitted that the role of accused Nos. 2 to 5 is not specifcally mentioned by the Informant in the alleged crime. On Perusal of evidence of the Informant it is established that the original accused Nos. 2 to 5 were causing ill-treatment to the Manisha. But it appears from the evidence that the Appellant used to abuse and assault Manisha. There is no evidence against the accused Nos. 2 to 5 that they caused the fatal injuries to the Manisha. The prosecution witnesses simply deposed that original accused Nos. 2 to 4 used to abuse deceased Manisha. There is evidence against the Appellant that he used to assault deceased Manisha. The evidence laid on record falls short to hold that the original accused Nos. 2 to 4 were involved in the physical assault on Manisha. Thus, prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 against the original accused Nos. 2 to 5. Thus it can be said that the Trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and held that the Appellant is guilty for the ofence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC

34. To prove the cruelty, the prosecution relied on the evidence of the Informant Narayan Sampat Wagh (PW-1), Ashok Baburao Wagh (PW-3), Nimba Sripat Wagh (PW-4), Tarachand Vikram Deore (PW-5).

35. The Informant deposes that his daughter Manisha married to the Appellant on 20th May 2006. He paid dowry of Rs. 70,000/- to the parents of the Appellant in the marriage. He also gave gold ornaments around seven tolas in the marriage. He also presented T.V., Show-case, cot and other house hold articles to the Appellant. According to the Informant, Manisha was treated well for above six months after the marriage. Thereafter, the Appellant (Accused No. 1) demanded Rs. 1,00,000/- for purchasing new auto-rickshaw but the Informant declined to pay the said amount as his fnancial condition was poor. He stated that the Appellant and Manisha had come to his house and at that time, the Appellant demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him but he showed his inability to pay the said amount. But Manisha requested him to pay the amount, accordingly, the Informant took Rs.30,000/- as hand loan from his cousin Ashok Wagh and paid it to the Appellant. The said fact is substantiated by Ashok Wagh (PW-3). According to him, one day the Informant came to his house and told him that the Appellant and his family members were demanding Rs.1,00,000/- to purchase auto-rickshaw. The Informant requested him to pay some amount as hand loan and accordingly, he paid Rs.30,000/- to the Informant. Except suggestion, the evidence of the Informant and Ashok Wagh has not been shattered on the point of payment of Rs. 30,000/- to the Appellant.

36. The Informant further stated that, after payment of Rs. 30,000/-, Manisha and the Appellant stayed in his house for couple of days. He gave new clothes to them. Thereafter, both of them went to the house of the Appellant. Some time thereafter, the Informant asked the Appellant whether he had purchased auto-rickshaw or not, the Appellant replied that auto-rickshaw cannot be purchased for Rs. 30,000/-. Thereafter, Manisha came to the house of the Informant for delivery. Manisha delivered baby girl on 16th October 2007, namely, Nikita @ Sweety. On 21st October 2007, the Appellant came to house of the Informant and demanded money. The Informant showed his inability to pay the money. Hence, the Appellant got annoyed and went away. Thereafter, Accused Nos. 2 to 4 came to his house to see the daughter of Manisha and they also demanded Rs. 50,000/- to purchase an auto-rickshaw. The Informant did not pay the said amount to them. Thereafter, Manisha stayed in his house for couple of months. Original Accused No. 3, Pradip came to the Informant’s house and took Manisha along with him to her matrimonial house.

37. It is deposed by the Informant that one day Manisha came to his house. She disclosed that, she was being ill-treated by the Appellant and co-accused for non-fulfllment of demand of money. She also narrated to the Informant that the Appellant used to beat her under the influence of liquor. She also complained that her mother-in-law also used to abuse her in flthy language. Co-accused Nos. 3 and 4 used to support the Appellant and her mother-in-law. Manisha was not ready to return back to her matrimonial house but the Informant along with his relatives Satish Motiram Sawkar, Nimba Sripat Wagh took Manisha to her matrimonial house. They requested the Appellant and co-accused not to ill-treat with Manisha but there was no change in their behaviour. The Informant deposed that Manisha used to visit his house and used to narrate the ill-treatment meted out to her by the Appellant and co-accused. The Informant further deposes that on 10th December 2008 at about 9.30 to 10.00 p.m. he received phone call from Original Accused No. 4, Uttam, who called him and asked him to take away Manisha from his house. The Informant told co-accused that he would come next day morning to receive Manisha. He also talk to Manisha and told her to stay in her matrimonial house and assured her that he would come on the next day.

38. The Informant further deposed that, on the next day, he went to the house of the Appellant but nobody was in the house, hence, he went to the Appellant’s feld, where the Appellant was present along with co-accused and other labours. The Informant made inquiry about Manisha but he told that Manisha was in the house. The Informant again came back to the house but the house was closed. Thereafter, the Appellant came to his house and told the Informant that Manisha ran away from the house along with her daughter. The Informant called his relatives and took extensive search for the Manisha but he could not trace her out. On the next day in the morning, he came to know that the dead bodies of Manisha and her daughter were floating in the well. He saw the dead bodies. The police came there and they drew panchanama of the spot as well as dead bodies. The evidence of the Informant was denied by way of suggestion, but except suggestion nothing worth has come on record to disbelieve the evidence of the Informant. It is submitted that the Informant improved his story, and he stated that on 21st October 2007 the Appellant had come to his house but the said date is not mentioned in his FIR. It is true that the date of visit of the Appellant is not mentioned in the FIR. It is stated by the Informant that after delivery of Manisha, the Appellant had come to see her daughter. Admittedly, Manisha delivered baby girl on 16th October 2007 and thereafter the Appellant had come, so it is obvious that the Appellant must have visited the Informant’s house within one week after delivery of Manisha. The visit of the Appellant is not denied, only dispute is raised regarding the date of his visit, the same is not material.

39. The prosecution also relied on the evidence of Ashok Wagh, (PW-3) who also substantiated the evidence of the Informant regarding demand of money. In fact, he paid Rs. 30,000/- to the Informant on demand of the Appellant. He also deposed that whenever he used to visit the house of Manisha, she used to disclose that the Appellant and co-accused used to ill-treat her. On 13 December 2008, he had received telephone call that dead bodies of Manisha and her daughter Nikita were lying in the well. So it can be said that witness Ashok Wagh has substantiated the evidence of the Informant on material point namely, payment of Rs. 30,000/-. The evidence of Nimba Wagh (PW-4) also supports the testimony of the Informant. He deposes that whenever Manisha used to visit her parental house, she used to report that the Appellant used to illtreate her and used to demand Rs. 50,000/- to purchase an auto-rickshaw. He further deposes that three months after the delivery of Manisha, he had accompanied the Informant and Satish to the house of the Appellant to convince him and his parents not to ill-treat Manisha. He also deposes that all of them requested the Appellant and his family members that the Informant was not having money to fulfll the demand of Rs. 50,000/-. He also deposes that on 11th December 2008 at about 11 a.m., he received call of the Informant that Manisha was missing from the house and he took search of Manisha along with the Appellant but Manisha was not found. Thereafter, he came to know that the dead body of Manisha and her daughter were floating in the well. So that the evidence of Nimba Wagh and Ashok Wagh substantiated the facts of demand of money from the Appellant and his family members.

40. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that neither the Informant nor the witnesses have produced any documentary evidence with regard demand of money by the Appellant and his family members. Therefore, the allegation of demand of money appears to be doubtful. I do not fnd any merit in the submission because the Informant categorically deposed that there was oral demand of money from the Appellant and his family members.

41. The third witness on point of cruelty is Tarachand Vikram Deore, (PW-5) who also deposed that one year after the marriage, Manisha disclosed him that her in-laws used to ill-treat her for less payment of dowry in the marriage. It is not case of the Informant that demand of money was towards dowry or unpaid dowry. No case under Section 304(B) is made by the Informant himself, so evidence of Tarachand can safely be ignored. He further deposes that Manisha told him that the Appellant used to demand Rs.50,000/- for purchase auto-rickshaw and she was being abused and beaten by the Appellant. He further deposes that on 11th December 2008, the Informant had told him that Manisha and her daughter was missing from the house. He further deposes that the Appellant told him that there was quarrel between himself and deceased Manisha and he had beaten Manisha and he tendered apology. But this part of the evidence appears to be unbelievable because the Appellant was not closely related to witness Tarachand Deore. The Appellant would not make extra judicial confession before person who is not closed to him. Thus, evidence of Tarachand is also required to be ignored on the point of extra judicial confession. He further deposes that he came to know that dead bodies of Manisha and her daughter were floating in the well situated at village Ajang. Therefore, the evidence of Deore is not much helpful to the prosecution to prove the alleged demand of money by the Appellant and his family members.

42. On the basis of the evidence on record, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Appellant was having an auto-rickshaw, therefore, demand of money for auto-rickshaw appears to be false. On the other hand, learned APP submits that the Informant categorically stated that the Appellant was demanding money to purchase new auto-rickshaw. It is suggested to Investigating Ofcer in the crossexamination that auto-rickshaw of the Appellant was registered on 2nd September 2008, so it can be inferred that the auto-rickshaw was transferred in the name of the Appellant three months prior to the incident. It was incumbent on the Appellant to establish, as to when he purchased auto-rickshaw. It is specifcally deposed by the Informant that the Appellant and his family members were demanding money for purchasing new auto-rickshaw. So demand of money for purchasing auto-rickshaw cannot be called as an after thought or false.

43. It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Investigating Ofcer has not collected any material regarding cell phone used in the crime. It is true that the Informant has given cell number on which he received telephone call on 10th December 2008 from Original Accused No. 4, Uttam. The Informant has given his cell number as 9763782369. The Investigating Ofcer has also made investigation regarding the mobile No. 9923153449, from which the Informant had received call on 10th December 2008. The said phone was registered in the name of Madan Jagtap. The said person Jagtap is not examined by the prosecution and CDRs are not proved by the Investigating Ofcer. The Informant received call of Original Accused No. 4 who gave information regarding quarrel took place in the night of 10th December 2008. Though CDRs of cell phone of the Informant as well as Madan Jagtap are not produced on record but the Informant received the information regarding the quarrel in the night of 10th December 2008, therefore, he could reach the Appellant’s house in the morning of 11th December 2008. So it can be said on the basis of information received by the Informant, he reached to the house of the Appellant. So somebody from the house of the Appellant must have given information regarding the quarrel or incident occurred in the night of 10th December 2008 to the Informant. Merely because CDRs of cell phone are not produced on record, the evidence given by the Informant cannot be brushed aside.

44. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the mere proof of cruelty is not enough. There should be reasonable nexus between cruelty and death of deceased and it must be established. To substantiate his point, he relied on the ratio laid down in the case of Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan & others V/s. State of Maharashtra {1993 CRI. L. J. 3019} wherein it was held that if cruelty is by itself established and the fact of suicide is also established; it would not be sufcient to bring home the guilt of committing cruelty as defned in Explanation (a) of Section 498(A) of IPC. A reasonable nexus has to be established between the cruelty and the suicide in order to make good the ofence of cruelty. Mere harassment or mere demand for property etc. is not ‘cruelty’. In the present case the prosecution has established the illegal demand of money from Manisha and the Informant. It is also established on record that Manisha was being illtreated for non-fulfllment of demand of money. So there is nexus between cruelty and death of Manisha. The harassment and illtreatment was caused to Manisha for non-fulfllment of demand of money.

45. On the basis of evidence of the Informant and other witnesses it is established that the Appellant and his family members were demanding money from Manisha for purchasing an auto-rickshaw. It is also established that the Informant had paid Rs. 30,000/- to the Appellant by borrowing money from his cousin Ashok Wagh. He could not fulfll the demand of Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant, hence, the Appellant and his family members were causing ill-treatment to Manisha. Thus, the prosecution has proved the ofence of 498(A) read with 34 of IPC against Accused Nos. 1 to 4.

46. It is not established by the prosecution that Original Accused No. 5 was residing with the in-laws of Manisha. There is no cogent evidence against Original Accused No. 5 to prove that he had also caused cruelty to Manisha for non-fulfllment of demand of money. Original Accused No. 5 was implicated in the crime because the Informant had made inquiry with Original Accused No. 5 regarding missing of Manisha, but he did not give any information and on the contrary asked the Informant do whatever he wants to do. The Informant felt that his behaviour was adamant, hence, he was roped in the crime, but in fact, there is no evidence on record to establish that he demanded any amount from Manisha or the Informant and caused ill-treatment to her for non-fulfllment of the said demand. The trial Court has acquitted Original Accused No. 5 for the ofence charged against him. So it can be said that the trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and come to correct conclusion. There is no need to interfere. In the result, both the appeals are required to be dismissed. Hence, we pass the following order: ORDER i) The appeal preferred by the Appellant bearing Criminal Appeal No.1470 of 2011 is hereby dismissed. ii) The appeal preferred by the State bearing No. 944 of 2012 is also dismissed. iii) The conviction order passed by the trial Court in Session Case No. 26 of 2009 is hereby confrmed. (SURENDRA P. TAVADE, J.) (PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.)