Narendra Sahebrao Patil   (Appellants)  Vs.  The State of Maharashtra  (Respondent)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 36 OF 2002

(CORAM: ABHAY S. WAGHWASE, J.)

Facts: The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.12.2001 passed by learned Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Nandurbar in Sessions Case No. 101 of 1994 recording guilt of appellants for offence punishable under Sections 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code [IPC].

Issue: Whether the offence of section 306 IPC is made out against the appellant or not?

Arguments on behalf of counsel for appellant:

Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that learned trial Judge has already acquitted accused persons from charge under Section 304-B IPC as well as under the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Therefore, learned trial Judge ought not to have held accused guilty of offence under Section 498-A of IPC. It is emphasized that there is no independent, reliable evidence in support of charge of cruelty. That, even accepting the case of prosecution witnesses, there was mere taunting and there was no mental or physical harassment so as to attract offence of 498-A IPC. He submitted that there was no previous complaint at any point of time but merely on losing sister, brother had set law into motion out of annoyance.

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:

Per contra, learned APP submitted that shortly after marriage, accused persons had put up a demand of Rs.10,000/- for purchase of agricultural land. Deceased promptly reported demand both, personally as well as by writing letter. That, she had reported about regular insults, ill-treatment, mental harassment and taunting. He pointed out that it has clearly come in the evidence of brother that CriAppeal-36-2002 -6- deceased Chandanbai was mercilessly beaten by husband. There is evidence about mother-in-law and brother-in-law humiliating deceased and instigating husband. Therefore, all were subjecting deceased to cruelty. That, cruelty was of such nature and extent that deceased was forced to end up her life. Therefore, finding evidence to that extent, learned trial Judge has correctly recorded guilt and so he prays to dismiss the appeal for want of merits.

Held: The court allowed the present appeal and held that, “Settled law on the point of offence of 306 IPC has already been discussed in aforesaid paras. Applying the settled legal position here, in the considered opinion of this court, there is no evidence about instigation or inducement to commit suicide. Mens rea which is essential ingredient is shown to be missing in the testimony of PW4 and PW55. Simplicitor accusations of taunting and demanding Rs.10,000/-, which was admittedly not followed by physical or mental cruelty, itself would not be sufficient to attribute abetment to commit suicide. Hence, in the considered opinion of this court, this charge fails.”