While acquitting a husband in a case registered under Section 498-A of the IPC, the Bombay High Court has held that a mere statement of the parents that the deceased daughter used to be unhappy and used to weep is not sufficient to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that there was harassment or conduct of such nature and degree that it would have driven her to commit suicide.

The Appeal was filed by the Original Accused challenging the Judgment whereby he was convicted for an offence punishable under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and pay fine of Rs 1000. The Appellant was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC; however, no separate sentence was awarded for the same. The Appellant was tried along with his mother, the second accused, who was acquitted under the impugned judgment.

The Single Bench of Justice M. M. Sathaye held, “In such circumstances, the necessary ingredient of cruelty in the form of conduct of such nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or harassment of a woman with a view to coercing her or a person related to her to meet unlawful demand for any property or valuable security is not clearly spelt out, much less proved. Mere statements that the deceased daughter used to be unhappy and used to weep is not sufficient to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that there was harassment or conduct of such nature and degree that it will drive a woman to commit suicide. In my view, the evidence on record as indicated above is not sufficient to conclude cruelty as contemplated under section 498-A of IPC beyond reasonable doubt.”

Advocate Pawan Mali represented the Appellant, while Additional Public Prosecutor Vinit Kulkarni represented the Respondent State.

Factual Background

The Appellant husband got married to his wife, who died in the year 1997.It was alleged that after the marriage, the Appellant-husband and the mother-in-law subjected the deceased to cruelty for bringing money from her parents for the purpose of household expenses and also demanded a sewing machine, as a result of which the deceased committed suicide by jumping into the river and drowning. She had left the matrimonial house, and a missing report was lodged on the same day. Thereafter, the father of the deceased lodged a complaint. The Appellant and the Accused mother-in-law both pleaded not guilty and demanded a trial.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that apart from a payment of Rs 1000 in or around Diwali of 1997 during the marriage of a relative, there was no other particular available instance of payment of money to the Appellant. Apart from the case of the deceased being unhappy and weeping during interactions, there was no other specific incidence of physical or mental cruelty stated by any of the witnesses, including the parents of the deceased. There was also no sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude that the sewing machine was given to Appellant as a result of illegal demand or illegal demand of property as a result of harassment.

Coming to the charge of abetment, the Bench noticed that there was nothing on record to indicate that the Appellant had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or had engaged in any conspiracy to push the deceased mentally or physically, in committing suicide. There was also nothing on record to show that the Appellant had intentionally aided the deceased in committing suicide. The Bench took note of the fact that the Appellant had lodged a missing report on the same day, where he had clearly indicated the fact that the Deceased had left behind her ornaments at home. It was also a fact that during the inquiry by the police on the missing report, none of the parents had stated anything about alleged harassment or cruelty by the Appellant.

“As indicated above, there is nothing to sufficiently prove persistent demands. There is nothing to indicate that deceased had any realization about her father not able to fulfill demands. There is also nothing to indicate any mental torture as held by the Trial Court”, the Bench held.

Thus, the Bench allowed the Criminal Appeal and acquitted the appellant of the charges.

Cause Title: Ramprakash @ Popat Govind Manohar v. State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation:2025:BHC-AS:47058)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Pawan Mali, Deepak More

Respondent: Additional Public Prosecutor Vinit Kulkarni

Click here to read/download Order


Bombay High CourtJustice MM Sathaye

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.