To Bring An Offence U/s. 498A IPC, Illegal Demand & Cruelty Driving Woman To Suicide Is Necessary: Bombay High Court

A bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice S.G. Chapalgaonkar was of the opinion that the evidence led by the prosecution was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

“Here, as regards Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is concerned; the learned trial Judge failed to consider that there was no illegal demand. It was then stated by the prosecution witnesses that the appellant was raising suspicion over the character of Nitabai. In order to bring offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code there has to be illegal demand or woman should be driven to commit suicide by acts of cruelty. In this case the prosecution had not come with the case that Nitabai has committed suicide. It was rather case of the accused that she has committed suicide. By no stretch of imagination the facts disclose and prove the ingredients of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code”, the bench observed.

Advocate Nilesh S. Ghanekar appeared for the appellant, APP V.S. Choudhari appeared for the respondent – State.

In the pertinent matter the Additional Sessions Judge, Aurangabad through the impugned judgment had convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code.

As pert the factual matrix, the deceased Nitabai-wife of the appellant-husband in her statement recorded by police head constable stated that her husband was an alcoholic and used to assault here by raising suspicion over her character.

On the day of the incident, she had alleged that the accused came and started abusing her and in order to teach her a lesson he took a kerosene can, poured it on her and set her on fire. However, the mother-in-law (also accused no. 3) tried to extinguish the fire and the father-in-law (also accused no. 2) took her to the hospital. The wife, however, later succumbed to the injuries.

While noting that the case of the prosecution was based on at least two dying declarations and 2-3 oral dying declarations, the Court noted, “We will consider the oral dying declarations later on because as compared to written dying declarations the evidentiary value of the same is less”.

Considering the facts and circumstances and the evidences placed before the Court, it was of the opinion that both the dying declarations were tutored by the relatives, and for the same reason should not have been relied upon by the trial Judge.

“It can be seen that the learned trial Judge has not considered the said evidence in proper perspective. Testimony of the appellant was supported by DW-2 Gokul and DW-3 Govind. They both are relatives of the accused and residing in the neighbourhood. Merely, because they are the relatives of the accused, their testimony cannot be discarded. They have taken active part in extinguishing the fire. The evidence led by the defence is consistent and therefore, ought to have been considered by the learned trial Judge”, the judgment read.

Accordingly, while allowing the appeal the bench set aside the impugned order and judgment of conviction of the trial court.

Cause Title: Santosh v The State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation: 2023:BHC-AUG:15735-DB]

Click here to read/download the Judgment