Case Note & Summary
The appellants, Ankush, Raosaheb, and Bhausaheb Gajar, were convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jalna, for offences under Sections 306, 498A, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abetting the suicide of Rukmini @ Sumitrabai, who was married to appellant no.1. The prosecution alleged that the deceased was harassed for a demand of Rs. 5,000 for installing an electric motor on the family well, and that she was subjected to ill-treatment, abuses, and insufficient food. She committed suicide by consuming poison on 11.10.1993. The trial court convicted all appellants. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence and found that the demand for Rs. 5,000 was for a household purpose and not a dowry demand, and that there was no evidence of instigation or active role by the appellants in the suicide. The court held that mere demand of money for household purpose does not constitute cruelty under Section 498A IPC, and that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act was not attracted as there was no proof of cruelty or harassment in connection with any dowry demand. The court also noted that the deceased had voluntarily gone to the matrimonial home and that the parents had promised to pay the amount. The appeal was allowed, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Requirement of Instigation - Mere demand of money for household purpose does not constitute abetment of suicide - Court held that there must be direct or indirect act of instigation or active role leading to suicide - In absence of such evidence, conviction under Section 306 cannot be sustained (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498A IPC - Demand for Money for Household Purpose - Demand of Rs. 5,000 for installation of electric motor on well is not a demand for dowry or property - Such demand does not amount to cruelty under Section 498A IPC - Held that the prosecution failed to prove willful conduct likely to drive woman to suicide (Paras 8-9). C) Evidence Law - Presumption as to Abetment of Suicide - Section 113A Evidence Act, 1872 - Presumption not automatic - Court must consider all circumstances - In this case, suicide occurred within seven years of marriage but no evidence of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand - Presumption not attracted (Para 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the demand of Rs. 5,000 for installation of electric motor amounts to cruelty under Section 498A IPC and whether the appellants abetted the suicide of the deceased under Section 306 IPC.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellants acquitted of all charges.
Law Points
- Abetment of suicide requires instigation or active role
- mere demand of money for household purpose not cruelty under Section 498A IPC
- presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act not automatic
- benefit of doubt in absence of direct evidence
