Bombay High Court: In a criminal appeal filed by the appellant (husband), an exception was sought to the judgment and order passed by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge which recorded the guilt of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). A single-judge bench of Abhay S. Waghwase, J. quashed the order of conviction and acquitted the husband extending benefit of doubt due to failure to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt..
Background:
The present matter revolves around alleged ill-treatment and demands after two months of marriage of the appellant (accused no.1) with the deceased. It was alleged that he demanded an amount of Rs. 40,000/- for a motorcycle, whereas the parents-in-law of the deceased (accused no.2 and 3) subjected her to mental cruelty. Because of this ill-treatment, the deceased consumed poison and committed suicide.
The father of the deceased (Prosecution Witness 1), filed a complaint upon which the crime was registered, investigated, and a charge sheet was filed against all three accused for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 304-B read with Section 34 of the Penal Code. Upon trial, accused no.2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges by the Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. The applicant was held guilty of offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of the Penal Code.
The appellant submitted that the deceased was upset for not conceiving and was also suffering from health issues which is why, the possibility of committing suicide by getting fed up because of personal problems cannot be ruled out. The maintainability and legality of the case of the prosecution were also questioned while stating that the Trial Judge should not have accepted the case on such bald allegations. It was also contended that the Trial Judge acquitted the parents-in-law on the same set of evidence but held the appellant guilty even in the absence of any legally acceptable evidence.
The State contended that the deceased was a patient of a jaw-locking health issue. The autopsy doctor clarified that such an issue occurs due to mental stress which was ample evidence for cruelty being meted out to the deceased.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to various cases, one of which was the landmark judgment of Giridhar Shankar Tawade v. State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177 wherein the scope and purport of Section 498-A of the Penal Code were discussed. In the landmark case of State of AP v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, it was emphasized that for an act to qualify as cruelty punishable under Section 498-A IPC, it must involve harassment intended to coerce someone into meeting an unlawful demand for property.
The Court noted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses were not consistent and that none of them were able to specify when exactly and what was the nature of ill-treatment that was meted out. Therefore, the Court found that the required ingredients for attracting Section 498A of the Penal Code are missing. The Court also noted that it was improper that the in-laws were acquitted on the same set of evidence, but the appellant was convicted.
Further, the Court found that a charge of 304-B of the Penal Code was also present, but the Trial Court had acquitted all accused from this charge and instead convicted the appellant under Section 306 of the Penal Code. The Court stated that it had already been discussed in various cases decided by the Supreme Court that if the accused deliberately creates circumstances, which are of such nature that the deceased is left with no other alternative but to end her life, only then the charge of abetment to commit suicide under Section 306 can be said to be successfully established.
The Court stated that a demonstration as to whether the consumption of poison was suicidal or accidental was required. Further, the Court said that unless it was cogently confirmed and firmly established that there was inducement, harassment, or cruelty by the appellant immediately before the death of the deceased, it would be unsafe to connect the appellant with the incident.
The Court held that because of weak and fragile evidence, the charge of abetment to commit suicide failed and that the prosecution had also failed to pinpoint abetment or cruelty by the appellant to be the sole reason for her death. Further, the Court held that the judgment of the Trial Judge could not be allowed to be sustained because the allegations against the appellant were general and omnibus in nature, and the legal requirements for recording guilt under Section 306 of the Penal Code were also not considered by the Judge. Thus, the appeal was allowed.
[Yadavrao v. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1205, Judgement dated 30-04-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant — Advocate Rekha Chaudhari, Advocate S.S. Chaoudhari
For Respondent — A.P.P, S.M. Ganachari