Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 889
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J.
Rajendra Balaji Mali - Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 405 of 1996
Decided On: 12-06-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Varsha Palav, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Deepak Thakre, APP.
The judgment establishes the requirement for specific instances of cruelty to prove the offense under section 498A of the IPC and emphasizes the need for independent proof of cruelty and suicide. It also highlights the importance of objectively evaluating evidence and avoiding presumption of guilt.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under section 498A and 306 IPC - 498A, 306 - The judgment discusses the evidence of cruelty and suicide in the context of the charges under section 498A and 306 of the IPC. The court scrutinizes the testimonies of witnesses and evaluates the concept of 'cruelty' under the law, emphasizing the need for specific instances of cruelty to establish the offense. The court also examines the inference of suicide from the evidence of cruelty and vice-versa, highlighting the requirement for independent proof of each fact. Ultimately, the court finds that the prosecution failed to prove the charges of cruelty and abetment of suicide, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of offenses under section 498A and 306 of the IPC based on the prosecution's allegations of cruelty and abetment of suicide against the appellant's wife. The prosecution's case relied on testimonies of relatives and circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of cruelty was vague and general, lacking specific instances to establish the offense under section 498A. Additionally, the court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that the wife's death was a suicide, ruling out the possibility of accidental death. The court criticized the trial judge for presuming the appellant's guilt and acquitted the appellant due to the lack of satisfactory evidence for the charges.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence for the charges under section 498A and 306 of the IPC, the concept of 'cruelty' under the law, and the inference of suicide from the evidence of cruelty.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for specific instances of cruelty to establish the offense under section 498A and highlighted the requirement for independent proof of cruelty and suicide. The court also criticized the trial judge for presuming the appellant's guilt and failing to objectively evaluate the evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and order of conviction, and acquitted the appellant.
1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13th June 1996 delivered by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Nashik in Sessions Case No.55/96, convicting the appellant who was the sole accused in the said case, of offences punishable under section 498A of the IPC and 306 of the IPC. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant to suffer RI for 2(two) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- on each of the said two counts.
2. The case of the prosecution as put forth before the trial court, in brief, be stated thus:
Sarla, sister of Balu Shelar (PW2) was married to the appellant. The marriage had taken place in the year 1991. Sarla was initially treated well for some period after the marriage, but thereafter, the appellant wanted Sarla to bring money from her brother for purchasing a jeep. Sarla committed suicide on 9th April 1995 by jumping in a well along with her two daughters, one aged two years and the other of about four months. That a couple of days prior to the death of Sarla, the appellant had been to the house of Balu Shelar along with one Waman, and had demanded some money for purchasing some agricultural land. Balu did not pay the amount. When he learnt about the suicide by Sarla and about her having jumped in the well along with daughers of tender years, alleging that the appellant was treating Sarla with cruelty and that he had abetted commission of suicide by Sarla, Balu lodged a report with the police which was treated as the First Information Report in respect of the aforesaid offences, and investigation commenced. After investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed pursuant to which the appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.
3. The prosecution examined six witnesses during the trial. The first witness for the prosecution is one Khandu Mali who is a panch in respect of the inquest panchnamas of the dead bodies and the spot panchnama. Balu Shelar – the First Informant – it has already been mentioned, was examined as the second witness for the prosecution and Jaibai – mother of Sarla was examined as the third witness for the prosecution. The fourth witness Suresh Shelar is another brother of Sarla. The fifth witness is Dr.Arvind Sukadu More, Medical officer who had conducted post mortem examination on the dead body of Sarla. The sixth and last witness for the prosecution is the Investigating Officer Dhanraj Dayama, who at the material time, was attached to Sinnar Police Station as an Assistant Police Inspector.
4. The appellant did not examine himself as a witness. He, however, examined one Waman Shirsat as a witness in his defence.
5. I have heard Ms.Varsha Palav, the learned counsel for the appellant. I have heard Mr.Deepak Thakre, learned APP for the State. I have been taken through the entire evidence – oral and documentary – adduced during the trial. I have carefully gone through the impugned judgment.
6. It is contended by Ms.Varsha Palav, the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no satisfactory evidence to hold the appellant guilty of the alleged offences. It is contended that the allegations of cruelty were baseless. It is submitted that there is a variance between the evidence of Balu (PW 2) and Janabai, and that this renders their story doubtful. Mr.Deepak Thakre, learned APP on the other hand submitted that, that Sarla had committed suicide, could not be disputed, and that in the light of this undisputed fact, the evidence of Balu and Janabai about Sarla having been treated with cruelty, ought to be accepted. He contended that Sarla could not have taken the extreme step of putting an end of her life and that too, along with the life of her two daughters of tender years; and that, the very fact that she did take such a step, indicated that she was treated with cruelty.
7. From the reasoning of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, as reflected from the judgment and the contentions raised by the trial court as well as before this Court by the prosecution,
