Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Satishraj Ramteke, was convicted by the trial court under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly abetting the suicide of his wife, Mamta @ Maya, and subjecting her to cruelty. The marriage took place in July 1993, and the couple resided at Durgapur and later Ballarsha. In October 1995, the deceased gave birth to a son. On 4 December 1995, the deceased died due to 100% burns after allegedly pouring kerosene on herself and setting herself ablaze in a room bolted from inside. The mother of the deceased, who was staying with them, claimed to have heard shouts but could not extinguish the fire. A neighbour, Ambadas Besekar (PW2), informed the police, and an accidental death report was recorded under Section 174 CrPC. On 6 December 1995, the maternal uncle and aunt of the deceased submitted a report alleging harassment by the appellant, but no immediate FIR was registered. On 17 January 1996, an FIR was registered based on the statement of the investigating officer, alleging that the appellant had scolded the deceased and suspected her fidelity, leading to her suicide. The trial court convicted the appellant, sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment under Section 306 IPC and one year under Section 498A IPC. The appellant challenged the conviction before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the evidence, noting that the prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimony of the deceased's mother (PW4) and aunt (PW1), which was found to be inconsistent and lacking credibility. The court observed that there was no independent evidence of cruelty or instigation, and the allegations of harassment were vague. The court held that mere suspicion of fidelity and scolding on a trifle matter did not constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC or cruelty under Section 498A IPC. The presumption under Section 113A of the Evidence Act could not be invoked as the foundational fact of cruelty was not proved. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The suo motu criminal revision was also disposed of.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Abetment of Suicide - Section 306 IPC - Conviction set aside - Prosecution failed to prove any act of instigation or wilful conduct by the appellant that drove the deceased to commit suicide - Mere suspicion of fidelity and scolding on trifle matter insufficient to constitute abetment - Held that conviction under Section 306 IPC cannot be sustained (Paras 10-12). B) Criminal Law - Cruelty by Husband - Section 498A IPC - Conviction set aside - Allegations of harassment vague and not corroborated by independent evidence - Deceased's mother and aunt's testimony inconsistent and lacking credibility - No evidence of dowry demand or physical/mental cruelty - Held that conviction under Section 498A IPC also fails (Paras 13-15). C) Evidence Law - Presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act - Not applicable - Presumption of abetment of suicide by husband can be raised only if cruelty is proved - In absence of proof of cruelty, presumption cannot be invoked - Held that the trial court erred in relying on presumption without foundational facts (Para 16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 306 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable based on the evidence on record.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant acquitted of all charges. Suo motu criminal revision disposed of.
Law Points
- Abetment of suicide requires direct or indirect act of instigation
- Section 306 IPC
- Cruelty under Section 498A IPC requires wilful conduct likely to drive woman to suicide
- Benefit of doubt
- Presumption under Section 113A Evidence Act not automatic
