The Aurangabad bench of the Bombay High Court overturned a 2004 conviction of a man and his family for cruelty and abetment to suicide in connection with the death of his wife.

The Court held that the allegations—such as not allowing the deceased to watch television, preventing her from visiting the temple alone, and making her sleep on a carpet—did not amount to cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) due to a lack of severity.

The Single-Bench of Justice Abhay S. Waghwase, delivering the October 17 Judgment, stated that the complaints were related to domestic matters and lacked the "severe" nature required to constitute mental or physical cruelty under IPC Section 498A.

The Trial Court in Jalgaon had convicted the accused family members of both cruelty (Section 498A) and abetment to suicide (Section 306) after the woman reportedly committed suicide in 2003. The High Court examined allegations of taunting, late-night water-fetching due to village water supply schedules, and restrictions on social interactions, finding these insufficient to establish a persistent pattern of cruelty.

Advocate Joydeep Chatterji appeared for the Appellant, Additional Public Prosecutor KK Naik appeared for the State, and Advocates RP Kahale and Vinod Patil appeared for the complainant.

The prosecution argued that the alleged mistreatment pushed the deceased to take her life; however, the Court found no direct evidence of mistreatment immediately preceding the suicide.

"Informant levelled general allegations that, her deceased daughter was subjected to physical and mental cruelty. Similar allegations are also levelled by uncle regarding humiliation, making her fetch water at 1:30 a.m., disliking meals, taunting, not allowing to watch T.V. along with others. Even aunt PW3 Minakshi deposed about above behavior. In the testimony of uncle and aunt, more particularly in the cross, which is discussed above, it is revealed that, in the testimonies of these two witnesses there are material omissions about accused subjecting to cruelty and she committing suicide due to it. It is admitted by witnesses that, in Varangaon, water supply is made at late night and therefore when the entire village is required to fetch water after 1:00 a.m., there is nothing unusual to expect deceased to fetch water at 1:30 a.m. or 1:00 a.m.. They are all levelling allegations of taunting, not allowing to watch T.V., not allowing to go alone temple, but in the considered opinion of this court, none of the allegations has any severity or such nature of allegations would not constitute physical and mental cruelty as almost allegations are pertaining to domestic affairs of the house of accused," the Court noted.

The Bench said, "..above reproduced allegations would not constitute offence of 498A IPC. Humiliation in what form, is not clarified. Merely sleeping on carpet also would not amount to cruelty. Similarly, what sort of taunting was made and by which accused is not getting clear. Likewise, preventing her to mix with neighbour also cannot be termed as harassment....cruelty can be either mental or physical. It is difficult to straitjacket the term cruelty by means of a detenition because cruelty is a relative term. What constitutes cruelty for one person may not constitute cruelty for another person."

The Court further observed that there had been no contact or complaints from the deceased in the two months prior to her death.

"Here, what is emerging on scrutiny of evidence of mother, uncle and aunt is that, visit of to them was at the time of Holi festival, which falls in March. Incident of suicide is of 01.05.2003. There is a gap of almost two months since deceased, complainant, and witnesses met each other. They have admitted that, there was no communication from either written or oral, she has not conveyed that there was any instances of cruelty in proximity to suicide," the Court said.

While quashing the conviction, the Court underscored that domestic disputes without severity or consistent abuse do not meet the threshold of cruelty or harassment necessary for conviction under the relevant IPC sections.

"Consequently, Endings of trial court are patently erroneous. Here, as submitted allegations are non specific, general or petty in nature, essential ingredients for 306 IPC are also not available, and therefore, such Judgment cannot be allowed to be sustained," the Court ordered.

Cause Title: XYZ v. State of Maharashtra [Neutral Citation No. 2024:BHC-AUG:25325]

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Abhay S. WaghwaseBombay High Court

Sukriti Mishra