Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the acquittal of Santosh @ Krushnadeo Yogiraj Kapse (A-1) and Yashodabai Yogiraj Kapse (A-2) by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2003 for offences under Sections 498A, 306, 302 r/w 34 IPC. The deceased, Manisha, was married to A-1 for three years. The prosecution alleged that after six months of marriage, the accused taunted and harassed her for not cooking properly, and later demanded Rs.10,000/- for constructing a water tank. The informant (father of deceased) claimed he gave Rs.5,000/- but could not pay the balance. On 25/02/2003, the deceased died by falling into a tank in the field. The informant suspected foul play as the deceased knew swimming. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding no evidence of dowry demand or cruelty. The High Court examined the evidence and held that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic and requires proof of cruelty soon before death. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove that the demand for money was a dowry demand or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The death was either accidental or suicidal, and there was no evidence of homicidal death. The acquittal was not perverse or unreasonable, and the appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Abetment to Suicide - Section 498A, 306, 302 IPC - Presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act - The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed for dowry and driven to suicide by falling into a tank. The trial court acquitted the accused. The High Court held that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act is not automatic and can be drawn only if there is evidence of cruelty or harassment soon before death. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of Rs.10,000/- for construction of water tank as a dowry demand or that the deceased was subjected to cruelty. The acquittal was not perverse and did not warrant interference. (Paras 1-17) B) Criminal Law - Murder - Section 302 IPC - Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution alleged that the deceased died due to drowning in a tank, but the informant claimed she knew swimming. The court noted that there was no evidence to show that the accused caused her death or that she was pushed into the tank. The death was accidental or suicidal, and the prosecution failed to prove homicidal death. The acquittal under Section 302 IPC was upheld. (Paras 1-17)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 498A, 306, 302 r/w 34 IPC was perverse and liable to be set aside?
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 30th April, 2004 passed by the 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2003 is confirmed.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act not automatic
- requires proof of cruelty or harassment
- Acquittal can be reversed only if perverse or unreasonable
- Benefit of doubt to accused if prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt
