Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 10th April 2008 passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli, acquitting the three respondents (accused) of offences punishable under Sections 498A, 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution's case was that Sarika, who died by hanging on 5th August 2007, married accused no.1 on 27th May 2006. After marriage, she resided with her husband (accused no.1), mother-in-law (accused no.2), brother-in-law (accused no.3), and father-in-law (not accused). The father-in-law suffered from asthma and needed bypass surgery costing Rs.1,50,000. The accused allegedly blamed Sarika for his illness and demanded Rs.50,000 from her parents for the surgery. In July 2007, Sarika informed her parents about the harassment and asked them to arrange the money. On 10th July 2007, accused no.3 collected Rs.40,000 from PW-2 (Sarika's father) and demanded the balance. Sarika died by hanging on 5th August 2007. The trial court acquitted all accused, holding that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty or abetment to suicide beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court, in appeal, examined the evidence and found that the trial court's findings were not perverse. The court noted that the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) did not support the case fully, and there was no evidence of cruelty soon before death. The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was not applicable as the foundational facts were not established. The court held that the acquittal was based on a plausible view of the evidence and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Acquittal Appeal - Perversity - State appeal against acquittal under Sections 498A, 306 IPC - Court held that unless the findings of the trial court are perverse or based on no evidence, the appellate court should not interfere with an order of acquittal - The prosecution failed to prove cruelty or abetment to suicide beyond reasonable doubt - Held that the trial court's judgment was not perverse and did not warrant interference (Paras 1-13). B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 113A - Presumption as to abetment of suicide of a married woman - The presumption under Section 113A is not automatic and can be raised only if the prosecution first establishes that the woman committed suicide within seven years of marriage and that her husband or relatives had subjected her to cruelty - In the absence of credible evidence of cruelty, the presumption cannot be invoked - Held that the trial court correctly declined to apply the presumption (Paras 10-12). C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 - Abetment of suicide - To convict for abetment of suicide, there must be direct or indirect acts of instigation or intentional aid leading to suicide - Mere harassment or demand for money without evidence of instigation does not constitute abetment - Held that the evidence on record did not establish that the accused instigated or aided the deceased to commit suicide (Paras 10-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 498A, 306 read with 34 IPC was perverse and liable to be set aside.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Ad-hoc District Judge 1 and Additional Sessions Judge, Sangli dated 10th April 2008 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act not automatic
- requires proof of cruelty soon before death
- Acquittal cannot be reversed unless perverse
- Benefit of doubt to accused when prosecution fails to prove case beyond reasonable doubt.
