Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order of acquittal dated 31st August 2004 passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2004, acquitting the respondents (original accused) for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, and 304-B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The case arose from the death of Pooja, who was married to accused Sachin Appasaheb Gaikwad (A-1) about two years before the incident. The other accused were her father-in-law (A-3), grandmother-in-law (A-5), brother-in-law (A-2), and sister-in-law (A-4). The prosecution alleged that after one month of marriage, A-1 and A-5 started demanding a gold ring and a showcase almari from Pooja's parents, and on that ground they began beating her. She was allegedly driven out of the house on multiple occasions but resumed cohabitation after intervention. On 30th November 2003, Pooja sustained burn injuries and was admitted to Sassoon Hospital, where she died. The informant (her uncle) lodged a complaint the next day, leading to Crime No. 93 of 2003. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The State appealed. The High Court examined the evidence, including the dying declaration (Exh. 28) recorded by the Executive Magistrate, which stated that Pooja caught fire while cooking and did not implicate any accused. The court also considered the testimony of PW-1 (informant), PW-3 (aunt), and PW-4 (mother), but found their evidence vague and inconsistent regarding the alleged demand for dowry and cruelty. The court noted that the prosecution did not produce any independent witness to prove the demand for dowry or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death. The court held that the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act could not be invoked because the foundational facts were not established. The court also found that the offence under Section 306 IPC was not made out as there was no evidence of instigation or intentional aid to commit suicide. The court concluded that the trial court's judgment was not perverse and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal was upheld.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304-B IPC - Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act - The prosecution must first establish that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives soon before her death in connection with demand for dowry. In the absence of such evidence, the presumption under Section 113B of the Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be invoked. The court found that the dying declaration and oral evidence did not establish any demand for dowry or cruelty soon before death. (Paras 10-15) B) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Ingredients - To convict under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution must prove that the accused instigated or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. Mere harassment without direct evidence of instigation is insufficient. The court held that the evidence of harassment was vague and not proximate to the suicide. (Paras 16-18) C) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498-A IPC - Definition of Cruelty - Cruelty must be of such a nature as to drive the woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury. The court found that the allegations of beating and demand for a ring and showcase almari were not proved by reliable evidence, and the dying declaration did not support the prosecution case. (Paras 12-14) D) Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Reliability - A dying declaration must be voluntary, truthful, and free from tutoring. The court noted that the dying declaration (Exh. 28) did not name any accused or allege any demand for dowry, and therefore could not be used to convict the accused. (Paras 10-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial court was perverse and liable to be set aside; whether the prosecution proved the offences under Sections 498-A, 306, and 304-B IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 31st August 2004 passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Pune in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2004 is upheld. The accused are acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113B of Evidence Act not automatic
- burden on prosecution to prove cruelty soon before death
- dying declaration must be voluntary and reliable
- acquittal not to be reversed unless perverse
