Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
K.R. Shriram, J.
The State of Maharashtra - Appellants
Vs.
Sitabai Rambhau Nigade and Ors. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 353 of 2009
Decided On : 26-02-2021
Indian Penal Code - Acquittal of Accused under Sections 498(A), 306, 34 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Sections 498A, 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code - The court discussed the legal provisions of Section 498A and the requirement of willful conduct likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury. It also highlighted the need for a nexus between the demand and harassment in cases of Section 498A. The court also discussed the legal principles of abetment under Section 306, emphasizing the requirement of direct or indirect act of incitement to the commission of suicide and the need for mens rea or community of intention. The judgment referred to various legal precedents to explain the concept of abetment and the factors to be considered in cases of abetment of suicide.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the acquittal of three accused of offences punishable under Sections 498(A), 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased, Muktabai, was subjected to harassment and ill-treatment by the accused, leading to her suicide. The prosecution's case was based on evidence from witnesses, including the parents of the deceased, alleging harassment and ill-treatment by the accused. However, the Trial Court acquitted the accused based on the lack of substantial evidence to prove the charges.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, was not substantial enough to prove the charges against the accused. The Court noted discrepancies and exaggerations in the testimonies of the witnesses, leading to the conclusion that the accused were not guilty of the alleged offences.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of the prosecution's evidence and the sufficiency of proof to establish the charges against the accused. The Court also considered the discrepancies and exaggerations in the witness testimonies, which raised doubts about the allegations against the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence to prove the charges against the accused. The Court emphasized the need for credible and consistent evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, especially in cases involving serious offences like harassment and abetment of suicide.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the Trial Court's acquittal of the accused, citing the lack of substantial evidence and the discrepancies in the witness testimonies.
JUDGMENT :
K.R. Shriram, J.
1. This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 10th July 2008 passed by the Court of Sessions Judge, Pune, acquitting three respondents (accused) of offences punishable under Sections 498(A) (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), 306 (Abetment of suicide) read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
2. One Muktabai got married to one Maruti. The date of marriage is not clear. Maruti's mother was accused no. 1 Sitabai Rambhau Nigade. Maruti's sister was accused no. 3 Shantabai Hanumant Pilavare. Maruti also had a cousin by the name Vishnu Nigade (accused no. 2), who was a Police Patil. Maruti used to work at Mumbai in a restaurant and return to his village twice or thrice in a year. Muktabai used to live with her mother-in-law, accused no. 1. Prior to Maruti marrying Muktabai, accused no. 3 was already married and she was residing in her matrimonial home in a village about 8 or 9 kms. away from the house where Muktabai was living with her mother-in-law. Muktabai committed suicide on or about 26th November 2005, approximately three years after marriage.
3. After her marriage, Muktabai went to reside at the house of accused no. 1 where the husband of accused no. 1 also used to reside. For two years life was smooth for Muktabai and there were no complaints whatsoever against her in-laws by Muktabai. Accused no. 2 thereafter got married and soon thereafter, his wife got pregnant. That was the trigger for harassment meted out to Muktabai by the accused. The harassment was sarcastic comments and calling Muktabai vanzoti (barren lady). Muktabai had not conceived even after two years of marriage and therefore, she was subjected to ill-treatment and also asked to leave the house.
4. PW-1 and PW-4, mother and father, respectively of Muktabai, have alleged that whenever Muktabai would visit them, she would lament about the harassment by accused no. 1 about her inability to conceive even after two years of marriage. The parents would pacify Muktabai and send her to her matrimonial home. It is prosecution's case that unable to withstand the harassment at the hands of the accused, on 26th November 2005 when Muktabai went to fetch water from Shivkalin water reservoir, she committed suicide by jumping into the reservoir and drowning. Spot panchnama and seizure panchnama was prepared and on 26th November 2005, PW-1 lodged the complaint. After investigation, chargesheet was filed. Statements of the Doctors were also recorded and copies of the inquest panchnama, postmortem report were also filed. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The accused have denied that they ever ill-treated Muktabai and according to defence, the death was an accidental death.
5. To drive home the charge, prosecution led evidence of eight witnesses, viz., Chandrabhaga Maruti Bhuruk, mother of Muktabai, complainant as PW-1; Ramchandra Kisan Venupure, panch witness as PW-2; Sopan Janu Buruk, uncle of Muktabai as PW-3; Maruti Janu Buruk, father of Muktabai as PW-4; Krushnabai R. Khule, relative of PW-1 and PW-4 as PW-5; Sindubai A. Umarathkar, relative of PW-1 and PW-4 as PW-6; Dr. Nanda Namdeo Shingade, Medical Officer as PW-7; and Vivek Eknath Lavand, Investigating Officer as PW-8.
6. The Trial Court, after considering the evidence, acquitted all the accused. I see no reason to interfere with the conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court. If one considers the case of PW-1 and PW-4, parents of Muktabai, the entire grievance is that Muktabai used to be called a barren women and because she was unable to conceive, she was told to leave the house. Even PW-3, who is relative of Muktabai, has also said the same thing. PW-5 and PW-6, who are also relatives of Muktabai and PW-1, have added some condiments and spices to the case by saying that the accused were taunting and not providing Muktabai food and would pick up quarrels
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
