Case Note & Summary
The appeal arises from the conviction of appellant no.1 Sanjay Chhagan Jadhav under Sections 498A and 306 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad in Sessions Case No. 135 of 1996. The deceased Mangal, daughter of PW1 Surmabai, married appellant no.1 about six years prior to the incident. The prosecution alleged that the accused persons, including appellant no.1, his parents (appellant no.2 and acquitted accused no.2), made unlawful demands of money from Mangal and harassed her for non-fulfillment. PW1 Surmabai claimed she paid Rs.5,000 by selling her land, but the accused demanded a further Rs.10,000. On 16.9.1995, Mangal committed suicide along with her two-year-old son by jumping into a well. The trial court convicted appellant no.1 and his father (appellant no.2) under Sections 498A and 306 IPC, while acquitting the mother. Appellant no.2 died during the appeal, and the appeal abated as to him. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that PW1 and PW2 (father of deceased) gave vague and contradictory statements regarding the demand of Rs.10,000. The suicide note (Exh.28) did not mention any harassment by the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC, as there was no evidence of willful conduct likely to drive the woman to suicide. Consequently, the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could not be invoked, and the charge under Section 306 IPC also failed. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted appellant no.1.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Harassment - Section 498A IPC - Cruelty - The prosecution must prove willful conduct of such a nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or cause grave injury. Mere demand of money without evidence of harassment or cruelty is insufficient. In this case, the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was vague and contradictory, and the demand of Rs.10,000 was not proved. Held that the conviction under Section 498A IPC is unsustainable (Paras 10-15). B) Criminal Law - Abetment to Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Abetment - For conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be direct or indirect act of instigation, aid, or conspiracy. The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act can be raised only if cruelty is proved. Since cruelty was not established, the presumption cannot be invoked. The suicide note (Exh.28) did not implicate the appellant. Held that the conviction under Section 306 IPC is unsustainable (Paras 16-20).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of appellant no.1 under Sections 498A and 306 IPC is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant no.1 under Sections 498A and 306 IPC set aside. Appellant no.1 acquitted. Fine, if paid, to be refunded.
Law Points
- Presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act is not automatic
- requires proof of cruelty soon before death
- Abetment to suicide requires direct or indirect act of instigation
- Mere demand of money without evidence of harassment does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC
