IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
M.K. THAKKER, J.
Jani Jainendrakumar Dilipbhai – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondents
R/Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2011 With Criminal Misc.Application (Direction) No. 1 of 2023 In R/Criminal Appeal No. 622 of 2011
Decided on : 01-04-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under sections 498A and 306 of IPC - Cr.P.C. 1973 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC for harassing and abetting the suicide of his wife. The deceased was alleged to have been subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellant and his relatives on the grounds of dowry. The deceased committed suicide by consuming an overdose of prescribed medication for depression.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under section 498A of the IPC, as the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt. However, the court acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under section 306 of the IPC, as there was no evidence of positive action by the accused leading or compelling the deceased to commit suicide.
Issues: The main issues were whether the appellant was guilty of the offences under sections 498A and 306 of the IPC, and whether the prosecution had established the necessary ingredients for the said sections.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while the prosecution established the case beyond reasonable doubt for the offence under section 498A of the IPC, there was no evidence of positive action by the accused leading or compelling the deceased to commit suicide, thus acquitting the appellant for the offence under section 306 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction under section 498A of the IPC and altered the sentence to the period already undergone. The court quashed and set aside the conviction for the offence under section 306 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
1. Present appeal is preferred under section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’), challenging the judgment and order of conviction passed by Learned Additional Sessions Court, Mehsana in sessions case No.132 of 2009 dated 09-05- 2011, whereby appellant-accused was convicted for the offence punishable under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’) and was ordered to undergo the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 03 years alongwith fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default further period of simple imprisonment of 01 month was ordered.
2. The appellant was further convicted for the offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and was ordered to undergo sentence of rigorous imprisonment of 05 years alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default further period of 03 months of simple imprisonment was ordered. Learned Trial Court has ordered all the sentence to run concurrently.
3. It is the case of the prosecution that an FIR came to be filed before Mehsana Taluka Police Station against 04 accused wherein the present appellant was named as accused No.1-husband, accused No.2-father-in-law, accused No.3-brother-in-law and accused No. 4–mother-in-law for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC bearing First CR. No. 163 of 2009.
4. It is the case of the complainant who is the father of the deceased namely Mrs.Binalben whose marriage was solemnized in the year 1995 with accused No. 1, that she was harassed and tortured physically as well as mentally by all the accused on the ground of dowry. It is further alleged in the FIR that accused No.1 had demanded Rs.3,00,000/- from the complainant and on non-fulfilling the demand, the deceased was sent to her paternal house after being beaten. Due to the harassment, the deceased lost her mental ability and at the house of the parents around 20:30 p.m. on 09-08-2009 she consumed an overdose of the medicine which was prescribed for depression and committed suicide.
5. On setting Criminal law in motion and after investigation was concluded, the charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused for the offences punishable under sections 498A, 306 and 114 of the IPC and section 3 and section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. As the case is tried by the Learned Sessions Court, therefore same was committed to the Learned Sessions Court under section 209 of the Cr.P.C. On being verified with regard to receiving charge-sheet papers, charges came to be framed below Ex. 3 against all the accused and their plea came to be recorded below Exh.4 to 6. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring the guilt, the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses and produced 27 documentary evidences, details of the same is mentioned herein below:-
| ORAL EVIDENCE | ||
| Sr. No. | Details of Oral Evidences | Exh. |
| 1 | Statement of Dr. Prakash Pravinbhai Patwa | 11 |
| 2 | Statement of complainant Mr.Arvindkumar Chandulal Jani | 17 |
| 3 | Statement of witness Mr.Apurva Arvindkumar Jani | 21 |
| 4 | Statement of witness Mr.Nigamkumar Rajendrabhai Thakkar | 22 |
| 5 | Statement of Panch Mr.Mehulbhai Pravinchandra Shah | 23 |
| 6 | Statement of witness Mrs.Ramilaben Pravinbhai Shah | 28 |
| 7 | Statement of P.S.O.Mr.Khumansinh Chamansinh Parmar | 29 |
| 8 | Statement of A.S.I. Mr.Sendhabhai Shankarbhai Makwana | 32 |
| 9 | Statement of Po.S.I. Mr.Dilipkumar Madhavrao Raleganvkar | 37 |
| 10 | Statement of Mr.Ranjitsinh Nathubha Chauhan | 42 |
| DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE |
| |
| Sr. No. | Details of Documentary Evidences | Exh. |
| 1 | Reminder by P.S.I to Medical Officer | 12 |
| 2 | Postmortem Report | 13 |
| 3 | Cause of Death Certificate | 14 |
| 4 | Reminder by Medical Officer to P.O. Mehsana, Taluka Police Station | 15 |
| 5 | Copy of Prescription given by Dr.R.B.Agrawal | 18 |
| 6 | Panchnama of Muddamal Recovery | 24 |
| 7 | S | |
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the appellant was found guilty of the offence under section 498A of the IPC, there was no evidence of positive action by the accused lea....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the intention of the accused to commit cruelty or abet suicide, and the evidence presented must be specific and cre....
Section 306 in Indian Penal Code reads as abetment of suicide.
The court concluded that mere harassment without direct instigation to commit suicide does not satisfy the requirements of Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, thus leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
To establish abetment of suicide under IPC, there must be clear evidence of instigation or encouragement; mere harassment lacks sufficient immediacy to constitute such abetment.
The judgment underscores the importance of establishing the specific elements of cruelty and abetment as required by the relevant legal provisions, and the discretionary nature of the presumption und....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.