Delhi HC: Workman Cannot Claim Section 17(B) of the ID Act Wages after Reaching Superannuation Age  ||  Allahabad HC: Caste by Birth Remains Unchanged Despite Conversion or Inter-Caste Marriage  ||  Delhi High Court: Tweeting Corruption Allegations Against Employer Can Constitute Misconduct  ||  Delhi High Court: State Gratuity Authorities Lack Jurisdiction over Multi-State Establishments  ||  Kerala High Court: Arrest Grounds Need Not Mention Contraband Quantity When No Seizure is Made  ||  SC: Silence During Investigation Does Not Ipso Facto Mean Non-Cooperation to Deny Bail  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Re-Examine Answer Keys Even in Judicial Service Exams  ||  SC: Central Government Employees under CCS Rules are Not Covered by the Payment of Gratuity Act  ||  Supreme Court Holds CrPC Principles on Discharge and Framing of Charges Continue under BNSS  ||  Supreme Court: High Courts Must Independently Assess SC/ST Act Charges in Section 14A Appeals    

Ramesh Narsingh Hire vs. State Of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:11097) - (High Court of Bombay) (19 Jun 2024)

Mere bald allegations without narrating details, would not be sufficient to gravitate charge under Section 498A of IPC

MANU/MH/3594/2024

Criminal

Appellant is challenging the judgment and order of conviction recorded by trial Court, thereby convicting for offence punishable under Sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).Appellant pointed out that, there was apparently false implication. Prosecution has failed to establish the charges by leading cogent and reliable evidence.

General and omnibus allegations by using the term ill treatment are levelled. What was the exact mental and physical cruelty inflicted is not elaborated by any of the witnesses and even no specific instances are quoted by any of them. Therefore, mere bald allegations without narrating details, would not be itself sufficient to gravitate charge of 498A of IPC. Cruelty as contemplated under law is not met in the evidence.

Accused is convicted for offence under Section 306 of IPC i.e. abetment to commit suicide. For bringing home the said charge, it is duty of prosecution to prove that there was abetment to commit suicide. Accused persons should intent that deceased should end up her life. With that object in mind, if they deliberately create circumstances, which are of such nature, that deceased is left with no other alternative but to end up her life, only then charge of abetment to commit suicide can be said to be successfully brought home. Abetment is equally an essential factor to be proved by prosecution.

Spot panchanamagoes to show that, episode of burn has taken place near earthen chulha. Burnt pieces of clothes are said to be lying near the cooking place. On the strength of such material, inference can definitely be drawn that, burns were suffered while cooking activity.

Therefore, as there is nothing to infer that only because of ill treatment and demand, deceased immolated herself, case so put-forth by prosecution cannot be straightaway accepted. Presence of accused is not marked or demonstrated at the time of alleged episode to hold him responsible for her burns. In fact, prosecution's own witness suggests that deceased suffered accidental burns. Resultantly, there is weak and fragile evidence regarding offence of Section 498A and 306 of IPC. Cruelty and abetment as contemplated under law has not been established. Apparently, there is improper appreciation of evidence. No satisfactory and sound reasons are assigned for accepting the case of prosecution. The conviction awarded to appellant for offence punishable under sections 498A and 306 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), stands quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags :   CONVICTION  EVIDENCE  LEGALITY

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved