Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of four accused persons by the 3rd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik, in a case involving the suicide of Anita, who was married to accused no.1. The trial court convicted accused no.1 under Section 498-A IPC but acquitted him under Section 306 IPC, and acquitted accused nos.2,3 and 4 under both Sections 306 and 498-A IPC. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded Rs.1 lakh from Anita's parents for accused no.1 to buy a shop, and subjected her to cruelty. Anita committed suicide by jumping into a well on 6th January 2000. The father lodged an FIR on 7th January 2000. The High Court examined the evidence, including testimonies of PW-1 (father), PW-2 (brother), and PW-3 (mother), and found that the allegations of cruelty were vague and not corroborated. The court noted that accused no.4 had been given in adoption and lived separately, and accused nos.2 and 3 also lived separately. There was no evidence that the accused instigated or abetted the suicide. The court held that the trial court's acquittal was based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not warrant interference. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Acquittal upheld - Allegations of demand for money and cruelty not sufficient to prove abetment of suicide - No evidence of instigation or direct nexus between alleged acts and suicide - Held that mere harassment without more does not constitute abetment (Paras 1-22).
B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498-A IPC - Acquittal of relatives upheld - Accused nos.2,3 and 4 living separately or given in adoption - No evidence of active participation in cruelty - Held that relatives not residing with victim cannot be held liable under Section 498-A IPC (Paras 1-22).
C) Evidence Act - Presumption as to Abetment of Suicide - Section 113-A Evidence Act - Presumption not automatic - Must be proved that suicide was committed within seven years of marriage and that cruelty was shown - In this case, no evidence of cruelty soon before death - Held that presumption cannot be invoked without foundational facts (Paras 1-22).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of accused nos.2,3 and 4 under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and accused no.1 under Section 306 IPC was correct in law.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The acquittal of accused nos.2,3 and 4 under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and accused no.1 under Section 306 IPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Abetment of suicide requires direct or indirect act of instigation
- Section 306 IPC
- Section 498-A IPC
- cruelty must be willful conduct likely to drive woman to suicide
- presumption under Section 113-A Evidence Act not automatic
- acquittal appeal standard of review
Case Details
2020 LawText (BOM) (02) 68
Criminal Appeal No.469 of 2004
Ms. Pallavi Dabholkar (APP for State), Mr. Anuj Desai (Amicus Curiae)
Vasant Pundalik Shankpal, Bhausaheb Pundalik Shankpal, Rambhau Pundalik Shankpal, Hanumanta Radhaji Gavali
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against acquittal in criminal case involving abetment of suicide and cruelty.
Remedy Sought
State sought conviction of accused nos.2,3 and 4 under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC and accused no.1 under Section 306 IPC.
Filing Reason
The trial court acquitted the accused of the said offences, and the State challenged the acquittal.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted accused no.1 under Section 498-A IPC but acquitted him under Section 306 IPC; acquitted accused nos.2,3 and 4 under both Sections 306 and 498-A IPC.
Issues
Whether the acquittal of accused nos.2,3 and 4 under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC was correct.
Whether the acquittal of accused no.1 under Section 306 IPC was correct.
Submissions/Arguments
Learned APP argued that the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite evidence of cruelty and demand for money.
Amicus Curiae submitted that the evidence did not establish abetment of suicide or cruelty by the accused, and the acquittal was justified.
Ratio Decidendi
For an offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be evidence of instigation or direct nexus between the alleged acts and the suicide. Mere harassment or demand for money without more does not constitute abetment. Relatives living separately or given in adoption cannot be held liable under Section 498-A IPC without evidence of active participation in cruelty.
Judgment Excerpts
This is an appeal impugning an order and judgment dated 20th December 2003 passed by the 3rd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik, acquitting accused no.1 of offence punishable under Section 306 (Abetment of suicide) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and accused nos.2,3 and 4 of offence punishable under Section 498-A (Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty), Section 306 read with Section 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of IPC.
The facts in brief are one Jagnath Ambu Bhandare (PW-1), the father of victim Anita, lodged FIR on 7th January 2000 in Pimpalgaon Police Station.
Procedural History
The trial court (3rd Ad-hoc Assistant Sessions Judge, Nashik) passed judgment on 20th December 2003 acquitting accused no.1 under Section 306 IPC and accused nos.2,3 and 4 under Sections 306 and 498-A IPC, while convicting accused no.1 under Section 498-A IPC. The State filed the present appeal on 26th February 2020 challenging the acquittal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC): 306, 498-A, 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 113-A
