Conviction under Section 306 IPC requires clear evidence of instigation or encouragement; mere allegations of harassment are insufficient.

Judgment

08/04/2025

The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 17.05.1995 passed by learned Sessions Judge, District Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial court’) in Sessions Case No.95/1994 by which the trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as under :

Offence U/s 498-A IPC : One year’s R.I. and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months’ S.I.

Offence U/s 306 IPC : Five years’ R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months’ S.I.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

Brief facts of the case are that on 21.04.1994, Police recorded the statement of deceased Kamla at Military Hospital, Jodhpur. In her statement, deceased-Kamla disclosedthat she has been married to the accused for about seven years. She revealed that she had burned herself using kerosene at about 7 AM citing her husband’s persistent physical abuse, harassment related to dowry and threats regarding his potential re-marriage to another women as the motivating factors behind her tragic decision. On this report, Police registered the FIR and started investigation. On completion of investigation, challan was filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 498-A , & 34 IPC .

Thereafter, charges were framed by the learned trial court against the appellant under Sections 306 IPC & 498-A IPC , who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited certain documents. Thereafter, statement of the accused- appellant under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 17.05.1995 convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for aforesaid offences.

At the threshold, learned counsel for the accused- appellant submits that no offence under Sections 306 & 498-A IPC is made out against the appellant. He submits that the deceased provided a statement before the Police on 21.04.1994 at about 3 PM in which she indicated that her husband frequently subjected her to physical abuse and harassed her for dowry, ultimately threatening to marry another woman. As a result, resorted to pouring kerosene on herself and igniting it. Subsequently, her mother-in-law and other family members urgently took the deceased to hospital. Counsel asserts that the Police failed to obtain a medical certificate from the doctor indicating whether the deceased was fit condition to provide a statement. He emphasizes that a postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 22.04.1994 and since her death occurred within 24 hours preceding the postmortem, it is likely that she was not in a competent state to give such a statement to the Police on 21.04.1994, at 3 AM. Furthermore, counsel points out that an examination of the deceased Kamla’s statement reveals no accusations against the appellant concering abetment to commit suicide. He further noted that according to the testimony of PW.14 – Laxmi Narayan, investigating officer in this case, there is a clear assertion that he did not record any statement from the deceased. Moreover, remains unclear who, if not the investigating officer, record the statement of the deceased. Counsel continues to assert that no offence under Section 498-A IPC is substantiate against the appellant as the specifics any demand made by the appellant to the deceased are absent. Counsel lastly submits that the occurrence relates back to year 1994 and the appellant has so far suffered about 1 month & 10 days of sentence, out of total sentence of five years’ R.I. In such circumstances, it is prayed that the sentence awarded to the accused-appellant for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 IPC may be reduced to the period already undergone by him.

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor opposed the submissions made by the learned coun