Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
Prem Narayan Singh, J.
Sumanbai @ Datta Bai W/o Hiralal Patil - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of M.P. Through P.S. Barwani District Barwani (Madhya Pradesh) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1636 of 1999
Decided On : 30-01-2024
IPC - Conviction under Section 306 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 306
Fact of the Case:
The deceased committed suicide due to mental and physical harassment by the appellant and co-accused on the pretext of demand of dowry. The appellant was convicted under Section 306 of IPC while the co-accused were acquitted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of abetting the deceased's suicide based on the dying declaration and statements of witnesses.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant could be convicted under Section 306 of IPC for abetting the deceased's suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows the presumption of abetment of suicide if the woman had been subjected to cruelty by her husband or relatives. However, the court emphasized that the presumption is discretionary and must consider all circumstances of the case.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 306 of IPC was set aside, and she was instead convicted under Section 498A of IPC for cruelty with her daughter-in-law. The appellant was sentenced to the period already undergone and fined Rs.10,000.
JUDGMENT :
T h e present appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.12.1999, passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Barwani, in Sessions Trial No.74/1999, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under sections 306 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo 10 years RI with fine of Rs.3,000/- respectively with default stipulations by acquitting the co-accused Heeralal, Dilip and Vinayak from the charges under Section 306/34 of IPC.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 09.12.1998 the deceased Surekha committed suicide by pouring kerosene oil on herself and setting her ablaze on fire due to the mental and physical harassment committed by the appellant alongwith other co-accused Heeralal, Dilip and Vinayak on the pretext of demand of dowry. Thereafter, she was taken to the M.Y. Hospital, Indore for treatment, but on 11.12.1998, she died. On the information, a Merg intimation was registered by the Police. Thereafter, the police during investigation found that the deceased has committed suicide due to demand of dowry. They were harassing her and tortured physically and mentally due to which she committed suicide. Initially, the offence under Section 498-A of IPC against the appellant and co-accused was registered and after death of deceased offence was aggravated to Section 306 of IPC.
3. During the investigation, spot map was prepared. Seized articles were sent to Forensic Laboratory and after recording of statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., the police has filed the charge-sheet against the accused persons under Section 306/34 of IPC before the Chief Judicial Magistrate and the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions. Thereafter, accused persons were charged for offence under Section Section 306/34 of IPC instead of under Section 498-A of IPC. They abjured their guilt and took a plea that they had been falsely implicated in the present crime and prayed for trial.
4. In support of the case, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses namely Madhusudan (PW-1), Rakesh Jaat (PW-2), Dr. Rakesh Jain (PW-3), Saheb Singh (PW-4), Ramesh Chandra (PW-5), Rangrao (PW-6), Anant (PW-7), Chatar Singh Damad (PW-8), Dr. H.S. Bhatia (PW-9) Trilok (PW-10), Soram Kishore (PW-11), Ravi (PW-12), Ramnivas Tiwari (PW-13), Manorama Kosthi (PW-14), Samauddin (PW-15), Ahibaran Singh (PW-16), Mumtaj (PW-17), Surendra Dube (PW-18), Dr. P.C. Jain (PW-19) & Krishnapal Prasad Pal (PW-20). No witness has been adduced by the appellant in her defence.
5. Learned trial Court, on appreciation of the evidence and argument adduced by the parties, pronounced the impugned judgment on 10.12.1999 and finally concluded the case and convicted the appellant for commission of the said offence under the provisions of Section 306 of IPC acquitting the other co-accused persons.
6. Impugning the findings of conviction and sentence, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are only omnibus allegations of demand of dowry against the appellant alongwith co-accused persons and there is nothing on record to connect the appellant with the offence. It is further submitted that the appellant is a lady and mother-in-law of the deceased. The learned trial Court has committed grave error of law and facts in considering the fact that the appellant and deceased were living with each other. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court while considering the evidence has committed error in not considering that if there was demand of dowry and cruelty, the deceased would have raised the alarm to anyone, but she has not lodged any complaint against any person of the family. The appellant was convicted solely on the basis of omnibus allegations leveled against the appellant learned trial Court has not found the charges proved under Section 306 of IPC against other co-accused persons and they have been acquitted by the learned trial Court from the aforesaid charges.
7. Further,
The discretionary nature of the presumption under Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act in cases of abetment of suicide based on cruelty, and the court's authority to consider all circumstances of ....
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....
Cruelty inflicted by a husband on his wife due to dowry demands, leading to her suicide within seven years of marriage, constitutes an offense under Sections 498A and 306 of the Indian Penal Code.
(1) There is nothing unnatural for a victim of domestic cruelty to share her trauma with her parents, brothers and sisters and other such close relatives. Evidentiary value of close relatives/interes....
Clear evidence of cruelty and a direct causal link to the suicide are essential for conviction under Sections 498(A), 304(B), and 306 of the IPC.
A conviction for abetment of suicide requires clear proof of intent and instigation, which were lacking in this case.
The judgment emphasizes the stringent requirement of proving clear mens rea and direct act leading to suicide to establish the offense of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, highlighting the n....
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
