Case Note & Summary
The marriage of deceased Ruksana was solemnized with respondent No.1 on 29.11.1996, and she died from burn injuries on 15.11.1998, within two years of marriage. The prosecution alleged that after an initial period of proper treatment, the respondents demanded Rs.5,000 for a sewing machine and later Rs.20,000 for a tempo, and subjected Ruksana to harassment when the demands were not fully met. On 14.11.1998, Ruksana sustained 92% burn injuries and succumbed the next day. Her father lodged an FIR on 19.11.1998, leading to charges under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 IPC. The trial court acquitted all six respondents, finding the prosecution evidence contradictory, the delay in FIR unexplained, and the possibility of accidental burns not ruled out. The State appealed, arguing that the nature of burns indicated suicide, not accident, and that the delay was adequately explained. The High Court noted that the prosecution's evidence, primarily from the deceased's family members, was inconsistent and uncorroborated on the crucial aspect of cruelty and harassment. Key witnesses did not testify to any disclosure of ill-treatment by the deceased, and the letters produced showed a harmonious marital relationship. The court held that the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could not be invoked because the foundational fact of cruelty was not proved. Further, the delay in filing the FIR was not convincingly explained, and the trial court's appreciation of evidence was not perverse. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the acquittal.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Appeal Against Acquittal - Interference by High Court - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 378/386 - The High Court held that unless the trial court's view is perverse or impossible, it should not be reversed. Here, the trial court's appreciation of evidence was reasonable and the acquittal did not warrant interference. (Paras 5-8, 17-19)
B) Evidence - Presumption of Abetment to Suicide - Section 113A, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court held that for the presumption to apply, the prosecution must first prove cruelty or harassment of the deceased. In this case, the evidence of family members of the deceased was inconsistent and uncorroborated, there was delay in lodging FIR, and no dying declaration was recorded. Moreover, the possibility of accidental burns was not ruled out. Thus, the acquittal was justified. (Paras 8-16, 18-19)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's acquittal of the respondents for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 of the IPC was perverse and whether there was sufficient evidence to convict them.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the acquittal of the respondents.
Law Points
- presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act can be drawn only if cruelty or harassment is first proved
- in appeals against acquittal interference is warranted only if the trial court's view is perverse
- inconsistent and uncorroborated testimony of interested witnesses delay in filing FIR and failure to rule out accidental death justify acquittal
Case Details
2017 LawText (BOM) (08) 91
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.848 OF 2003
Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J.
Mrs. Geeta Mulekar, Mr. Shailesh Chavan i/by Mr. Milind Deshmukh
Makbool Bandagi Mulani, Smt. Mashabi Bandgi Mulani, Sultan Bandgi Mulani, Gaybisaheb Bandgi Mulani, Smt. Niyamat Usman Mujawar, Smt. Rubabi Usman Mujawar
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against acquittal
Remedy Sought
The State sought to set aside the acquittal and convict the respondents for offences under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 IPC.
Filing Reason
The State felt the acquittal was perverse and against the weight of evidence.
Previous Decisions
Acquittal by Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati, on 1.4.2003 in Sessions Case No.15 of 1999.
Issues
Whether the prosecution had established cruelty and harassment sufficient to draw the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act.
Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse and warranted interference by the High Court.
Submissions/Arguments
The State argued that the 92% burn injuries all over the body, including face and neck, could not be accidental and indicated suicide. The delay in FIR was explained as the father assumed the police had already taken cognizance.
The respondents supported the trial court’s judgment, asserting that the evidence was inconsistent, the delay in FIR was not satisfactorily explained, and the possibility of accidental burns was not ruled out.
Ratio Decidendi
To attract the presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act, the prosecution must first prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment. Inconsistent and uncorroborated evidence, unexplainable delay in lodging the FIR, and failure to rule out accidental death justify the acquittal. In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court will interfere only if the trial court’s view is perverse; a possible view based on evidence cannot be substituted.
Judgment Excerpts
The only question, therefore, for consideration is whether there is sufficient evidence to draw presumption as laid down under Section 113(A) of the Evidence Act, to prove that she was subjected to cruelty and harassment and the cruelty and harassment was of such a nature as was likely to drive her to commit suicide or cause burn injuries to herself.
Thus, there may be some evidence about the demand of money, but as regards harassment, ill-treatment or cruelty at the hands of respondents, to meet this demand, there is no consistent, cogent or corroborating evidence.
There is delay of five days in lodging complaint... The explanation offered... does not appear to be convincing, especially in the light of his admission that his brother-in-law Alamgir has given the contents of F.I.R. and he has merely signed it.
Even as regards the cause of death, the medical case papers and postmortem report show that history was given of accidental burns due to bursting of stove. At the spot, the stove, which has turned blackish on account of burst was also found and seized.
Hence, as rightly observed by trial Court, it becomes difficult to accept the case of suicidal burns. The possibility of burns can be accidental as well as suicidal and here the evidence on record does not rule the possibility of accidental burns.
Procedural History
The trial court (Additional Sessions Judge, Baramati) framed charge under Sections 498A and 306 read with 34 IPC. The respondents pleaded not guilty. After trial, by judgment dated 1.4.2003 in Sessions Case No.15 of 1999, they were acquitted. The State appealed to the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 498A, 306, 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 113A
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 313
