In an appeal against the judgment dated 27.02.2019 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagpur, the appellant/accused was initially convicted under Sections 498-A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment of suicide) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the offense under Section 498-A and ten years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 306. However, the appeal court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had subjected his wife to such extreme cruelty and harassment that led her to commit suicide. The court noted that the evidence presented by the parents and other witnesses did not establish the necessary ingredients for abetment of suicide, resulting in the acquittal of the accused.

1. Background Facts:

The appellant, husband of the deceased Pushpa alias Pinki, was convicted by the trial court for allegedly harassing her to the point of suicide. The marriage took place on 23.04.2016, and the deceased committed suicide on 02.02.2017 by setting herself on fire while eight months pregnant. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had subjected her to cruelty and demanded money, which led to her death.

2. Prosecution's Case:

The prosecution argued that the deceased was harassed and subjected to both mental and physical cruelty by the appellant for dowry and financial demands. Evidence included testimony from the deceased's parents, who claimed the appellant demanded money and caused physical and mental torture. They also testified that the accused was addicted to alcohol and ill-treated the deceased.

3. Defense's Argument:

The defense argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offenses under Sections 498-A and 306. The defense contended that normal marital disputes could not be equated with abetment to suicide and that there was no concrete proof of the accused’s direct involvement in the deceased's death. They also highlighted the inconsistencies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses and the absence of any injury on the accused.

4. Court's Observations:

• The court noted inconsistencies in the testimonies of the deceased's parents and found the allegations of cruelty vague and not of an extreme nature to drive someone to suicide.
• The presence of a kerosene stove and the possibility of an accidental fire were considered, but evidence did not conclusively prove that the accused was present or responsible for the incident.
• The court emphasized that normal wear and tear in a marriage does not constitute abetment to suicide unless there is clear evidence of sustained, extreme cruelty.

5. Conclusion:

The appeal court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s intent or direct involvement in abetting the suicide. The court ruled that the allegations did not meet the threshold of proof required for the conviction under Sections 498-A and 306 of the IPC, and thus, acquitted the appellant.

6. Key Takeaways:

• The court requires substantial evidence to prove the offense of abetment to suicide.
• Mere marital disputes or normal wear and tear in a marriage cannot be sufficient grounds for conviction unless there is clear proof of severe and sustained cruelty.
• The presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act is not absolute and must be backed by concrete evidence of cruelty within seven years of marriage.