SC: Forfeiture of Earnest Money Impermissible When Both Buyer and Seller are at Fault  ||  Supreme Court: Gravity of Offence Cannot Defeat Speedy Trial; Pre-Trial Detention is Punishment  ||  SC: Terrorist Act under UAPA Includes Conspiracies to Disrupt Essential Supplies, Not Just Violence  ||  Supreme Court Directs Measures to Prevent False and Frivolous Complaints Against Judicial Officers  ||  SC: Mere Participation in Arbitration Doesn’t Bar Challenging Arbitrator; Waiver Must be in Writing  ||  SC: Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, the Plaintiff, as Dominus Litis, Cannot be Forced to Add a Defendant  ||  SC: Law Does Not Change With a New Bench; Decisions of a Coordinate Bench are Binding  ||  Delhi HC Absence of Formal Arrest under Section 311A Crpc Does Not Bar Giving Handwriting Samples  ||  Del HC: Security Guards Performing Duties Cannot Be Prosecuted For Wrongful Restraint or Molestation  ||  Bombay HC: Housing Society Earning From Telecom Towers Isn’t An ‘Industry’; Staff Get No Gratuity    

Satish and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AUG:5953) - (High Court of Bombay) (18 Mar 2024)

Sole admission under Section 313 of CrPC in absence other corroborative piece of evidence, cannot be made basis of conviction

MANU/MH/1811/2024

Criminal

Judgment and order passed by Additional Sessions Judge, thereby convicting husband and in-laws (Appellants) for offence punishable under Section 498A read with section 34 and recording guilt of husband accused no.1 alone for offence punishable under section 494 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), is assailed by filing instant appeal. Appellants submits that, prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. Secondly, there is no independent evidence and only interested witnesses are examined. That, testimonies of witnesses are full of inconsistencies, variances, material omissions and contradictions.

On taking overall survey of prosecution witnesses on the point of 498A of IPC, apparently witnesses are not consistent about since exactly when ill treatment began. Evidence on the point of cruelty and ill treatment is weak or fragile. It has also come in the evidence that some of the accused are residing separately. Therefore, it was expected of prosecution to give specific instances, but evidence to that extent is missing.

There is no distinct evidence regarding performance of second marriage. For such charge, independent evidence could have been readily available, if there had been second marriage being performed. Law is fairly settled that, sole admission under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) in absence other corroborative piece of evidence, cannot be made basis of conviction.

There is little, weak or no evidence on the point of ill treatment. Learned trial court has already acquitted accused for 306 of IPC. There is no iota of evidence whatsoever in support of charge of 494 of IPC. Therefore, as none of the charges are cogently proved, case of prosecution cannot stand.

Learned trial court has not properly appreciated the evidence as well as law. Therefore, interference is called for. The conviction awarded to appellantsfor the offences punishable under Sections 498A read with 34 and section 494 of Indian Penal Code is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2026 - All Rights Reserved