SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Abhay S. Waghwase, J.
Shamrao S/o. Balaji Tidake - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2004
Decided On : 09-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Joydeep Chatterji, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. N. D. Batule, APP

Insufficient evidence of cruelty or inducement to establish convictions under IPC sections 498A and 306, leading to quashing of the trial court's decision.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 498A and 306 - Conviction for cruelty and abetment of suicide - Trial court's conviction of the appellant for offences under sections 498A and 306 was challenged on grounds of lack of evidence and inconsistency among witnesses - The evidence did not substantiate the charges, as there were general allegations of cruelty without specific instances cited - The court found that there was no abetment or inducement that could compel the deceased to commit suicide - Resultantly, the appeal was allowed, quashing the conviction. (Paras 10, 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The appellant married the deceased, but there were allegations of cruelty and instigation by the first wife which led to the deceased committing suicide - The deceased’s brother and mother testified about the ill-treatment, but there were inconsistencies in their accounts.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the evidence was weak and did not establish the essential elements of the offences under sections 498A and 306 - The trial court's judgment was found lacking in proper appreciation of evidence.

Issues: The main issues addressed included whether there was sufficient evidence of cruelty and whether the appellant abetted the suicide of the deceased.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that there was insufficient evidence of cruelty or inducement to compel suicide, finding the trial court's conviction unwarranted.

Result: Criminal appeal stands allowed; conviction quashed and set aside.

Table of Content
1. conviction for sections 498a and 306 challenged. (Para 1 , 2)
2. appellant denies allegations of cruelty and intoxication. (Para 3)
3. prosecution claims abuse leading to suicide. (Para 4)
4. key testimonies reveal inconsistent accounts. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
5. evidence insufficient to prove cruelty. (Para 9 , 10)
6. lack of evidence for abetment or inducement. (Para 11 , 12)
7. conviction quashed due to improper evidence. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT :

ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.

1. In instant appeal, appellant takes an exception to the judgment and order dated 31.01.2004 passed by 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna in Sessions Case No.46 of 2001, convicting him for offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

BRIEF BACKGROUND OF PROSECUTION CASE IN TRIAL

2. Police Station Taluka Jalna registered crime bearing no.146 of 2000 for offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of IPC on receipt of report at Exh.22 from brother of deceased, who alleged that, his sister Parvatabai was married with appellant, who was already married. Everything was smooth for a period of two years. Husband was addicted to liquor and started ill treatment to deceased. Accused no.2, i.e. first wife of appellant instigated husband to assault his sister. Whenever she came, she reported above ill treatment. 15 days prior to the death, he had been to his sister. That time, accused husband assaulted him for coming to see her. After two days of his return, he got message that his sister was admitted in civil hospital. Then he learnt that, his sister had committed suicide by jumping into the well and therefore, he lodged above report (Exh.22), on the basis of which, police registered above crime.

Case being exclusively triable by the court of sessions, it came to be assigned to the court of 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, who conducted trial vide Sessions Case No. 46 of 2001 and by its judgment and order dated 31.01.2004 recorded the conviction of husband alone for offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of IPC and accused no.2 acquitted from all the charges.

Precisely, the said judgment and order of conviction which is now assailed before us by way of present appeal.

SUBMISSIONS On behalf of Appellant : -

3. Sum and substance of the arguments of the learned counsel for appellant is that, prosecution came with a case that, deceased Parvatabai was married with accused, who was already married. It is alleged that, second marriage was performed with deceased Parvatabai because first wife did not bear child. However, he pointed out that, subsequently, first wife gave birth to daughter and even Parvatabai gave birth to son. With this factual background, learned counsel pointed out that there was no question of cruelty. That, witnesses are not clear and consistent on the point of cruelty and that mere allegations are levelled that husband get addicted to liquor and assaulted Parvatabai. That, specific instances are not given by informant except stating that 15 days back, when he went to see his sister Parvatabai, he was assaulted by stick. According to learned counsel, informant did not lodge any report to that extent. According to him, allegations are false, baseless and general in nature on the point of section 498A of IPC. He pointed out that, according to informant, his sister was treated well for two years, but his own mother PW3 contradicts him by stating that Parvatabai was treated properly for a period of five years. Therefore, learned counsel submits that, witnesses are not only inconsistent, but they are levelling omnibus allegations without specifying ill treatment. He further pointed out that, there is no distinct or independent evidence of neighbour on the point of ill treatment and only family members are examined. That, section 306 of IPC is concerned, he pointed out that, evidence does not suggest inducement or abetment so as to attract said charge. He pointed out that, in fact occurrenc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top