Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from the acquittal of four accused persons by the Sessions Court, Nanded, in a case concerning dowry harassment, dowry death, and abetment of suicide of a married woman, Phulwantabai. The marriage had taken place on 1st May 1993, and the father had given dowry of Rs. 15,000, a gold ring, and household items. The deceased cohabited with her husband and in-laws. It was alleged that after a year, the stepmother and husband began ill-treating her over demands for costly household items, leading to her returning to her parents' home for six months. She was sent back after an assurance from the husband. On 5th September 1996, the father received information of her death. The postmortem revealed poisoning by Endosulfan, an insecticide. The prosecution examined medical evidence, the father, brother, and other witnesses to prove cruelty, dowry demand, and abetment. The accused denied the allegations, stating the dowry was voluntary and that the suicide resulted from the deceased being scolded for misplacing a ration card. The trial court acquitted all accused. The State appealed. The High Court, after re-appreciating evidence, noted that while marriage, death within seven years, and dowry payment were admitted, the crucial question was whether the accused caused the death. The medical officer testified that immediate death was not possible from the poison and that injuries could have been caused during transport on a motorcycle. The father's evidence about dowry demand related to an incident about three years prior, and there was no evidence of cruelty or harassment 'soon before death' as required by Section 304B IPC. The defence that suicide followed a scolding over a lost ration card appeared probable. The Court held the death was suicidal, not homicidal, and no abetment was proved. Applying the settled principle that in an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court shall not interfere if two views are possible and the trial court's view is a possible one, the High Court found the acquittal neither perverse nor manifestly erroneous. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, confirming the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Dowry Death - Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - 'Soon Before Death' Requirement - The prosecution evidence of demand of dowry pertained to an incident approximately three years before the death, with no proof of cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry soon before the suicide. Held that the essential ingredient of proximity between cruelty/harassment and death was not established; accordingly, the charge under Section 304B failed. (Paras 10-11)
B) Criminal Procedure - Appeal Against Acquittal - Standard of Interference - High Court - When two views are possible and the trial court's view is a possible view, the appellate court should not interfere, even if another view might be taken. Interference is warranted only if findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous, relying on Rajinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Major Singh v. State of Punjab, and Maya Devi v. State of Haryana. Held that the trial court's acquittal was plausible and not perverse. (Paras 12-13)
C) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306, Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Mens Rea and Instigation - The defence that the deceased committed suicide after being scolded by the husband for losing a ration card was found probable. Merely scolding a person over a lost item does not amount to instigation or intentional aiding to commit suicide. Held that the ingredients of abetment under Section 306 were not proved. (Para 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the prosecution proved the charge under Sections 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and whether the trial court's acquittal was perverse or manifestly illegal warranting interference in appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredient of cruelty or harassment soon before death under Section 304B IPC. The defence that the deceased committed suicide after being scolded for losing a ration card was found probable, and no abetment was established. The trial court’s view was a possible view, not perverse or manifestly erroneous. Therefore, the appeal was devoid of merits.
Law Points
- Section 304B IPC - dowry death
- soon before death requirement
- Section 498A IPC - cruelty
- Section 306 IPC - abetment of suicide
- standard of appellate review against acquittal
- two possible views principle
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 29
Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2001
S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane
R.V. Dasalkar for appellant/State; Anil M. Gaikwad for respondent nos.1 and 2
The State of Maharashtra, Through the Police Station Mukhed, At the instance of Tukaram Sakharam Pohare
Govardhan Vithal Govande, Gayabai Prayagbai Ramji Buktane, Satwabai Vithal Govande (died), Ambubai alias Gayabai Gangadhar Sadavarte
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal by the State against the acquittal of accused persons for offences under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with the alleged dowry death and abetment of suicide of a married woman.
Remedy Sought
The State sought reversal of the acquittal and conviction of the respondents for the charged offences.
Filing Reason
The trial court had acquitted all accused; the State contended that the evidence on record proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
Previous Decisions
The IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded, in Sessions Case No. 188 of 1996, vide judgment and order dated 6th April 2001, acquitted the respondents of all charges.
Issues
Whether the prosecution proved cruelty or harassment in connection with dowry demand soon before death to establish the offence under Section 304B IPC.
Whether the respondents abetted the suicide of the deceased Phulwantabai, attracting Section 306 IPC.
Whether the trial court's appreciation of evidence was perverse or manifestly illegal, warranting interference in an appeal against acquittal.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant/State argued that the father, mother, brothers, and other witnesses consistently stated about ill-treatment and harassment by the accused for dowry; death occurred within seven years of marriage; and medical evidence supported the prosecution case. Therefore, the acquittal was erroneous and the appeal should be allowed.
Respondents/accused argued that the prosecution evidence was inconsistent; the deceased stayed at her parents’ house for six months prior to the incident; and the view taken by the trial court was a possible view. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents regarding the standard of interference in acquittal appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
In an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible and the view taken by the trial court is a possible view, the appellate court should not interfere unless the findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous. For a conviction under Section 304B IPC, cruelty or harassment must be 'soon before death' and in connection with a demand for dowry; mere evidence of past demands is insufficient. Abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC requires a positive act of instigation; scolding over a lost item does not amount to such instigation.
Judgment Excerpts
the evidence about demand of dowry is regarding incident of about three years prior to the incident of death. Except that, there is no evidence to show that, soon before her death, there was any demand of dowry and cruelty meted out to her. Thus, one of the essential ingredients of Section 304B of I.P. Code has not been proved.
we find that the death was suicidal and not homicidal and there is no evidence to show that the accused persons either abetted her to commit suicide or caused complications so as to attracts the ingredients of section 306 of I.P. Code.
In an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible and the view taken by the trial Court is possible view, then the appellate Court should not interfere with that view unless findings are perverse or manifestly erroneous.
Procedural History
The informant, Tukaram Pohare (father of the deceased), lodged a report at Police Station Mudkhed on 5th September 1996 regarding the death of his daughter. The police investigated, collected evidence, recorded statements, and filed a chargesheet in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded. The case was committed to the Sessions Court as the offences were exclusively triable by it. In Sessions Case No. 188 of 1996, the trial court framed charges under Sections 498A, 304B, 306 read with 34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty. After a full trial, the IInd Assistant Sessions Judge, Nanded, acquitted all accused on 6th April 2001. The State preferred Criminal Appeal No. 296 of 2001 before the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal, accused no. 3 (stepmother) died and the prosecution against her abated. The High Court heard the appeal and dismissed it on 20th July 2017, affirming the acquittal.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498A, 304B, 306, 34
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
