A conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC requires clear evidence of sustained cruelty and a direct link to suicide, not merely emotional disputes.

JUDGMENT :

GITA GOPI, J.

1. The appellant herein came to be convicted under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC) with a sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- and in case of default of fine, to further undergo 7 days simple imprisonment. The conviction was also under Section 306 of with sentencing of the appellant-accused for 7 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.500/- and in the event of default in payment of fine, to undergo further one month imprisonment. The benefit of set-off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to in short as ‘Cr.P.C.’) was granted. The judgment and order of conviction and sentence was passed on 20.05.2003 by the learned District Judge, Valsad in Sessions Case No. 90 of 2002 (Old Sessions Case No.128 of 1996).

2. The appellant accused is the husband of the deceased-Premila. The charge against the accused was in relation to the death of his wife on 11.05.1996. The span of marriage was of one year prior to the incident. After marriage, the deceased-Premila was staying with the appellant-husband at Sarigam Pahadpada. It was alleged that during the matrimonial life, the accused used to mentally and physically harass the deceased and the deceased was subjected to cruelty which was likely to drive the woman to commit suicide and thus, the accused came to be charged under Section 498A of IPC. Further, as per the charge, that the accused used to beat the deceased and had subjected her to mental and physical cruelty, thereby had induced the deceased to commit suicide. For that reason, between 20.00 hours of 10.05.1996 to 15.00 hours of 11.05.1996, at Saregam Pahadpada in the field of accused by hanging herself with a nylon rope on the tree, she had committed suicide. Thus, the charge under Section 306 of was drawn against the accused.

3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhaval Vyas appearing with learned advocate Ms. Yukta Pandey and learned advocate Mr. D.A. Sankhesara contended that the learned trial Court Judge has not examined the evidence on record as per the well established principles of criminal jurisprudence. The learned trial Court Judge has committed an error in observing that the accused had abetted the commission of suicide within the meaning of Section 107 of IPC. The learned trial Court Judge has failed to properly evaluate the entire evidence on record and more particularly, the evidence of the father and the family members of the deceased. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhaval Vyas submitted that the ingredients to constitute the offence of abetment cannot be said to be proved. The allegations are general, as of harassment at the hands of the accused and the incidents which are quoted cannot be considered as a harassment which would fall under the definition of ‘cruelty’ as explained under Section 498A of. It is further submitted that it is a settled law that the conviction under Section 306 of could not be merely on the allegations of harassment to the deceased. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Vyas submitted that the word “instigate” as used under of would require the presence of mens rea. At the minimum, proximate cause has not been proved to show any connection with the suicide to the conduct of the accused.

4. Referring to the testimony of the father-Naginbhai Devjibhai, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhaval Vyas submitted that the allegations qua the accused is that the accused used to quarrel with the deceased and beat her. Further from the record, it has been proved that accused was having a job in GIDC and was having a passion to play ‘banjo’ and during the night time, used to perform at musical parties. He used to play to earn extra income, since he was playing during night hours so was not liked by the wife and therefore, quarrels used to occur. Such quarrels cannot be considered as a major ground to constitute the offence as cruelty and it c