Bombay High Court: In an interim application filed by the deceased’s mother-in-law who was convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of Penal Code, 1860, sentenced to suffer imprisonment for seven years, seeking stay on conviction, M.S. Karnik, J. found the instant one to be a rare and an exceptional case and ordered stay on her conviction.
Background
The marriage of deceased and her husband was solemnized on 29-12-2010, and the deceased committed suicide on 12-09-2016. The First Information Report (‘FIR’) was lodged after a delay on 15-08-2017. The Trial Court convicted the mother-in-law for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306 and 304-B of Penal Code, 1860. The High Court had suspended the sentence to the mother-in-law through Order dated 8-03-2022 and enlarged on bail.
Court’s Analysis
The Court referred to Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India, (2018) 18 SCC 114 wherein, the Supreme Court considered the scope of Appellate Court’s power to stay a conviction.
The Court acknowledged the fact that there was a conviction on record against the mother-in-law, but perusal of depositions by witnesses, in the Court’s opinion, depicted that the allegations were mainly pointed towards the deceased’s husband. There were general allegations of ill-treatment against the mother-in-law, pointing towards the deceased’s mother who alleged that the mother-in-law harassed the deceased on account of her failure to give a cupboard and some household articles in marriage.
The Court also perused the depositions by deceased’s paternal aunt which contained that the mother-in-law worked as a sweeper with the Health Department of Solapur Municipal Corporation, provided articles for the family’s livelihood, left the house at around 5 AM to attend the work and returned home after 2 PM. She was also taking care of the two minor grandchildren. The Court observed that although she was convicted, considering the nature of evidence against her, delay in lodging FIR was not satisfactorily explained.
The Court expressed that it was persuaded to stay her conviction due to the fact that she was employed as a sweeper and had to provide for the basic needs of her grandchildren. When she reported for duty at the Solapur Municipal Corporation office, she was informed that appropriate action would be taken only after orders staying conviction were produced by her.
The Court regarded the instant case as ‘rare and exceptional’ while opining for stay on conviction. It took note of the pendency of matters while stating that the appeal might take a long time to be finally heard. Hence, the Court ordered a stay on conviction passed by the Trial Court confining the same to the mother-in-law.
[Chanda Ram Shivsharan v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1895, Order dated 9-08-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Applicant: Advocate Ritesh M. Thobde, Advocate Sagar S. Tambe, Advocate Changdev S. Shingade
For State: Additional Public Prosecutor Anamika Malhotra
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
