Back
High Court of Bombay
S.S.Shinde
Radhakisan
Vs.
State of Maharashtra
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 482 OF 1999
Decided On : Feb 10, 2011
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 306 and 498-A-Conviction and sentence under-Alleged offence of cruelty and abetment of suicide-Wife committed suicide by consuming poison-No evidence of harassment or ill-treatment to deceased-No reliable and cogent evidence indicating accused alone responsible for act or had intention which led deceased to commit suicide-Failure of prosecution to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt-Entitled accused to benefit of doubt.-On plain reading of provisions of Sections 107, 306 and 498-A of the IP Code, would clearly demonstrate that unless the harassment or cruel treatment is of such a nature that it would force the woman to commit suicide, no conviction can be given under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The ingredients of Section 107 of the IP Code would be applicable if there is any instigation direct or indirect incitement or there is any aid or intentional aid by the accused which led for the commission of suicide by the deceased. In the instant case, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution does not fulfil ingredients of either Section 34, 107, 306 or 498-A of the IPC. For invoking the provision of Section 34 it was incumbent on the prosecution to show the involvement of specific overt act attributed to the each of the accused. There are no specific allegations against each of the accused except allegations against original accused No. 2 that he demanded Rs. 2,000/- from the complainant. As stated earlier the appellant No. 2 is no more and this appeal already stands abetted against the appellant No. 2. Therefore, that part of the evidence is of no use for the prosecution so far present appellant/accused is concerned. It find omnibus allegations in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. No only this, but the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination, contradicts with their own evidence. There are also contradictions in the evidence of other witness. If the evidence of the prosecution witnesses is read in its entirety it does not inspire confidence so as to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Time and again the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reminded that, while entertaining the case for the offence punishable under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code the Courts should be very careful in examining the evidence brought on record. Unless there is clinching, convincing and cogent evidence which would unequivocally indicate that accused alone is responsible for the act or had intention which lead the commission of suicide by the deceased, then only conviction under Section 306 of IP Code can sustain. Nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to connect accused/appellant with the commission of suicide by the Meerabi. Even the C.A. report is in negative. Even if the medical evidence is accepted as it is, at the most it can be said that Meerabai committed suicide by consuming poison. However, question remains that, whether said commission of suicide was at the instance of appellant. Whether the appellant instigated, aided or intended that Meerabai should commit the suicide. As stated earlier, there is no evidence available on record to show that soon before the commission of suicide, the appellant was instrumental in any way either directly or indirectly or he intended the commission of suicide of the deceased Meerabai.
Even if the case of the prosecution against the appellant, for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IP Code is tested on the basis of evidence on record, in Court’s opinion, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution is too short to sustain the conviction under Section 498-A of the IP Code.
(1) This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order dated 22nd December, 1999 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 351 of 1996. There are two appellants in this appeal. However, counsel appearing for appellants informs this Court that, the appellant No. 2 is no more and he died four years back during the pendency of this appeal. She has made this statement on the basis of instructions given by the appellant No. 1, who is present in the Court hall. This position is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State. Therefore, so far as, the appellant No. 2 is concerned, the appeal stands abated.
(2) The prosecution case is that: The daughter of the complainant Uttam Ganpat Chavan was married with accused No. 1 on 13th February, 1996. After the marriage she went to the house of accused for cohabitation. The original accused No. 2 and 3 are the parents and the accused No. 4 is the brother of the accused No. 1. All the accused resided jointly in one and same house. It is the case of the prosecution that, initially for a period of one month after marriage the deceased Meerabai was treated properly by the accused. However, subsequently all the accused persons started harassing her on the ground that she should bring money from her parents. The accused also threatened to do away with her life if she would not bring money. It is further case of the prosecution that, whenever Meera used to visit her parents home, she use to narrate about the harassment and ill-treatment meted out to her at the house of accused. The complainant had visited the house of accused persons with three/four respectable persons from his village and advised accused to give good treatment to Meerabai, however, accused did not listen.
(3) On 01st September, 1996 accused No. 2 Kachru had come to village Kingaon at the house of complainant and he demanded Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant. The complainant showed inability to pay the amount. The accused Kachru then took away iron chain and neck rope (Jote) from the house of complainant. On the very next day i. e. on 03rd September, 1996 message was received by the complainant to the effect that his daughter Meerabai has consumed poison and she was admitted in Ghati Hospital. Then they went to the Ghati Hospital and found that Meerabai was lying in unconscious condition. Subsequently on 05th September, 1996 Meerabai expired in hospital. On the above allegations report was lodged to Khultabai police station vide Exhibit 11 dated 06.09.1996. The police machinery was set in motion. The offence came to be registered vide Cr. No. I-170/1996 for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498A, 304B r/w Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The investigation was carried out. The postmortem examination was followed. The spot panchanama was drawn in the field of accused and one container of poisonous substance came to be seized from the spot. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The accused persons came to be arrested. Viscera and seized poisonous substance was sent to Chemical Analyser. On completion of investigation charge sheet came to be filed against the accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Aurangabad. The learned Magistrate on 20.11.1996 committed the case to the Court of Sessions as the alleged offence U/Sec. 304B of the Indian Penal Code is exclusively triable by the Sessions Court.
(4) After framing the necessary charge, and after the due Trial, the Sessions Court after framing the points for its determination and after appreciation of evidence brought on record and after hearing the parties convicted the appellants herein i. e. accused No. 1/Radhakisan Kachru Khandagale and original accused No. 2/Kachru Raghunath Khandagale for the offence punishable U/Sec. 498A of the Indian Penal Code and both of them were sentenced to suffer R. I. for a period of two years each and to pay fine of Rs. 500/-. In default further R. I.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
