Case Note & Summary
The State of Maharashtra appealed against the judgment and order dated 3.2.2004 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati, in Sessions Trial No. 116/2002, acquitting the respondent Rajendra Bhujade and his co-accused relatives (Ravindra Bhujade, Chhaya Bhujade, and Sushilabai Bhujade) of offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The deceased Archana was the wife of the respondent, married in 1998. Initially, she was treated well for 3-4 months, but differences arose. The respondent moved out of the joint family with Archana, but the differences persisted. The prosecution alleged that the respondent demanded Rs. 20,000 from Archana and her father for digging a well, and that the respondent and his relatives harassed and ill-treated Archana for not meeting the demand and for her inability to bear a child. On 31.1.2002, Archana consumed poison and died. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding the prosecution evidence insufficient. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in not invoking the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act and in disbelieving the witnesses. The High Court examined the evidence, particularly the testimony of the father (PW-1) and the deceased's letters (Exhs. 32 and 33). The court found that the father's evidence was inconsistent and uncorroborated, and the letters did not mention any demand for money. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove cruelty under Section 498A IPC. Regarding abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, the court noted that there was no evidence of instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid by the accused. The presumption under Section 113A was not attracted as the foundational fact of cruelty was not established. The court concluded that the trial court's findings were plausible and not perverse, and therefore dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment to Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Ingredients of abetment - The prosecution must prove that the accused instigated, engaged in conspiracy, or intentionally aided the suicide. Mere harassment or cruelty without direct or indirect act of instigation does not constitute abetment. In this case, the deceased committed suicide due to alleged ill-treatment, but there was no evidence that the respondent or his relatives instigated or provoked her to take the extreme step. Held that the acquittal was proper as the essential ingredients of abetment were not made out. (Paras 8-10) B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband or Relatives - Section 498A IPC - Demand for property or valuable security - The prosecution alleged a demand of Rs. 20,000 for digging a well, but the evidence of the father (PW-1) was inconsistent and uncorroborated. The deceased's letters (Exhs. 32 and 33) did not mention any such demand. Held that the charge under Section 498A IPC was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 5-7) C) Evidence Act - Presumption as to abetment of suicide by a married woman - Section 113A - The presumption under Section 113A is discretionary and can be raised only if the prosecution first establishes that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before her death. In this case, the evidence of cruelty was weak and unreliable, and therefore the presumption was not attracted. Held that the trial court correctly did not invoke the presumption. (Para 9) D) Criminal Procedure Code - Appeal against acquittal - Scope of interference - The appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the findings are perverse or unreasonable. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was plausible and not perverse. Held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the acquittal of the respondent and co-accused for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of IPC was correct in law, and whether the State's appeal against acquittal should be allowed.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondent and co-accused for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 IPC.
Law Points
- Abetment to suicide requires direct or indirect act of instigation
- not mere harassment
- Presumption under Section 113A of Evidence Act is rebuttable and not automatic
- Acquittal cannot be reversed unless perverse
- Benefit of doubt must be given when prosecution evidence is weak
