IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Agarwal Ashok, J.
Ravindra Pyarelal Bidlan others.... Appellants.
Versus
State of Maharashtra.... Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 440 of 1986, decided on 11/12-2-1993.
Advocates appeared :
S.G. Deshmukh, for appellants.
S.B. Patil, P.P., for State.
Indian Penal Code - Suicide - Section 498-A - Summary
Fact of the Case:
Rukmini, the wife of accused No. 1, committed suicide by pouring kerosene on her person. The accused were prosecuted under sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were acquitted of the offence under section 306 but convicted for the offence under section 498-A.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence failed to establish that the accused were guilty of cruelty as defined under section 498-A(a) of the Indian Penal Code. However, the evidence was sufficient to hold that the accused were guilty of subjecting Rukmini to cruelty as defined in sub-clause (b) of section 498-A.
Issues: The court analyzed the evidence to determine if the accused were guilty of cruelty as defined under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded any articles from Rukmini or Meena and that the accused had harassed or beaten them for the purpose of coercing them to meet those demands.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellants-original accused. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to them. Their bail bonds shall stand cancelled.
2. P.W. 1 Thandiram Tak is the father of Rukmini. He is the resident of Jaijawan Nagar in Yerawada. He has five sons and four daughters. Rukmini was one of them. While his daughters were minors and of tender age he got three of them married on one single day. His elder daughter Sukhadevi was married to P.W. 4 Sevaram who is also a resident of Pune. His second daughter Rukmini was married to accused No. 1 and his third daughter Meena was married to accused No. 3 who is none else but the brother of accused No. 1. Rukmini and Meena were barely aged 6 to 7 years at the time of their marriage. Since they had not reached their age of puberty they continued to reside with Thandiram. Sometime in the year 1982 when Rukmini attained her age of puberty she was sent to the house of the accused. She stayed there for a period of about three months and thereafter returned to her parents. At that time she complained to her father that the accused were beating and ill-treating her and were demanding several articles, as they were not given at the time of the marriage. Rukmini continued to remain with her parents for about three years. During this period no efforts were made by the accused to secure the return of Rukmini. On the 8th of January, 1985 an Advocate's notice (Exhibit-19) was issued on behalf of Rukmini calling upon the accused No. 1 to take her back for cohabitation. Similar notice was issued to accused No. 3 on behalf of Meena. It appears that certain efforts were made to refer the dispute to Panchas. Thandiram was insisting that accused No. 1 should execute a writing assuring that he would treat Rukmini well. Accused No. 1 declined to execute any writing. He, on the 25th of June, 1985, addressed a letter to his brother-in-law Sevaram stating that he will not execute any writing, and will not submit himself before the Panchas and that Rukmini should be sent back to him. Thereafter, accused No. 1 came to the house of Thandiram and took Rukmini as also Meena to their house. At this stage, Meena appears to have gone to the house of the accused for the first time after her marriage. Her stay in the house of the accused was for a short period. After about 2½ months i.e. around October-November. 1985 accused No. 3 brought Meena back to the house of her parents and dropped her there saying that he was required to go to Delhi.
3. On the Sankrant, which fell on the 14th of January, 1986, Ganesh - brother of Rukmini - went to the house of the accused to bring her to her parental house. She was, however, not sent by the accused. Then followed the fateful event which occurred on 21st of January, 1986 while none else was present in the house. Rukmini locked herself in the house, poured kerosene on her person and set herself ablaze. She sustained hundred percent burn injuries and succumb
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.