Bombay High Court
Bhargav K.Salukhe
Versus
State of Maharashtra
Decided On:

Headnote:Section 498-A-Conviclion under-Absence of proof of demanding money and harassing wife on failure of meeting demands-No such details in F.I.R.-Hence, conviction can be sustained.

       There is no other evidence for sustaining the conviction under Section 201 of the I.P.C. except the recovery of the gold ornaments at the instance of the accused. Section 498-A of the I.P.C. was introduced in the Code by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983. By the same Act, Section 113-A has been added to the Indian Evidence Act to raise a presumption regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman. Section 498-A envisages that where a husband or his relative subjects the wife to cruelty, he or that relative shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 years and fine. Explanation (b) to Section 498-A says that cruelty means 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, is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. A perusal of this provision indicates that it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A. The complainant has conclusively to establish that the beating and harassment is question was with a. view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demand of dowry. In the instant case, it is not the prosecution case that the deceased was harassed by the accused for reason that her relatives failed to meet this unlawful demand of money. There is no proof that the accused had demanded money from the parents of the deceased and because of the failure to meet his demands, he harassed the deceased. The evidence of P. W. 3 does not receive any corroboration. Even this fact does not find a mention in the F.I.R. The conviction under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. cannot be sustained.

       The inferences drawn by the trial Judge, reproduced supra, are not deducible from the evidence present on record. These are not inferences but assumptions. Conviction cannot be based on assumptions. The circumstantial evidence brought on record, reproduced and discussed above, is not consistent with the guilt of the accused and does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis, consistent with his innocence.

       The prosecution having failed to substantiate the charges, it is unnecessary to deal with the defence of the accused regarding his plea of his insanity and his defence that the gold ornament were given by the deceased to his father.

       Section 45-Handwriting expert-Evidence of must be taken with great caution-Consistent dissimilarities in general features of disputed writing and admitted signature and handwriting-Consistent dissimilarities In-Experts opinion that disputed handwriting tallied with specimen handwriting cannot be sustained.

       For Citation : 1996 Cr LJ 1228 (Bom)